2

I prefer this site. So I am enjoying it.

But unfortunately, as I did enjoy Philosophy SE, which would've been the last SE to graduate the Beta, there seems to need more tighten belts to accomplish it.

My proposal is

  1. Source only question and source only answer. (Though this does not exclude the assumption based Q&A so tightly)

  2. Downvotes should be provided with reasons for them. Downvotes without any explanation looks like a backstabbing, not foreseeing any constructive view to change this site/question.

  3. Too minute and detail explanation request question should be unwelcome. We've seen quite a lot of Otaku like questions, especially regarding the military issues, so wouldn't it better for us to exclude or at least put on hold these types of questions to make this site better?

I appreciate any anti or pro answers for the creativity for this site.

  • This site has been for Beta for almost 4 years now. After Japanese SE, Philosophy SE ( which graduated a year ago ) as far as I have ever seen. – Kentaro Mar 2 at 3:13
  • I'm not posting an answer since I hope that users of the site will express their opinions, rather than just moderators. However, I will note that your second point has been raised and discussed multiple times here on Meta, for example here and here. – sempaiscuba Mar 3 at 23:32
  • @sempaiscuba I know, my friend. But nobody is practicing it and sometimes I anonymously too downvote especially to military Otaku gadget questions without any constructive messages. – Kentaro Mar 4 at 5:03
  • 4
    There is a reason why elections are held based on anonymous voting. Justifying downvotes would work great if participants were angels. In practice, the response to the down vote is not "Aha, let me fix that", it is "You're wrong, you're stupid and I'm sending my posse to your house to commit acts of violence." If downvotes required justification, the result would be less feedback, not higher quality feedback. – Mark C. Wallace Mar 4 at 17:11
  • 1
    Is there any difference between a beta site and a "graduated" site? – Mark C. Wallace Mar 4 at 19:58
  • 1
    There was a post on Meta:SE some weeks back that appears to be relevant in this context. – sempaiscuba Mar 4 at 21:19
  • Also, I would be careful about the use of terms like "Otaku-like". If I understand the usage correctly, it would seem to come very close to breaching the SE Code of Conduct in regard to name-calling. – sempaiscuba Mar 4 at 21:25
  • 1
    College was such a great time, "why graduate" is indeed a question that should be answered beforehand (ie in the Q). AFAIK "beta" carried the substantial risk of being shut down for eg not graduating in time. On metaSE I think I read that this sword is no longer fixed to a horse's hair for functioning betas (& HistorySE is). Therefore, before we discuss how, please list a few of the actual the advantages of or goals to achieve by "being graduated"? – LаngLаngС Mar 4 at 23:28
  • @LangLangC - That standard is basically now so low that unless you've totally dropped the ball, any site in Beta is gonna stay there in perpetuity. On the flipside, you don't get a fancy new site design now, so the actual benefit of being out of beta is pretty much nil – Richard Mar 4 at 23:54
  • @Richard Yeah. That stubborn UI roll-out is a -1. But with "gonna stay" you mean 'can stay' or 'will stay' (see sempa's link for a hint on planned policy changes regarding features for maturing betas)? – LаngLаngС Mar 4 at 23:59
  • 1
    @LangLangC - I see no deep evidence of many (any?) sites graduating and they've only just closed off a few that were truly failed. I suspect that the whole area 51, beta, graduation thing is coming to an end. – Richard Mar 5 at 0:13
  • But I was once laughed out at Beta that History is the Beta site so, he said this site is a kind of an amateur site or more to say, irrelevant? site. Staying at Beta means there is no improvement at all in the quality, wouldn't you all here think so? – Kentaro Mar 5 at 0:27
  • 1
    "Laughed at beta"? Please clarify what that means? But not here in comments. Include that info and your reasoning 're:improvement in quality' into the question. That may be a true and valid reasoning, or not, but it is a reason worth thinking about? (And I haven't thought about before) – LаngLаngС Mar 5 at 1:17
  • @LangLangC I will try. But I am sorry I would rather like not. Since the question at the Meta got huge downvotes. ( My proposal to split History into Military and other Historical stuff site ) – Kentaro Mar 5 at 1:23
  • 1
    @LangLangC Oh, I didn't know that. Thank you for that. I like more informative ( or educational questions ). And regarding the comment issue I mentioned above, I took a comment in a different way. My apology. – Kentaro Mar 5 at 1:58
6

First, the official stats, right now, from Area51:

2702 days in beta

5.4 questions per day
Okay – 10 questions per day on average is a healthy beta, 5 questions or fewer per day needs some work. A healthy site generates lots of good content to make sure users keep coming back.

93% answered
Excellent – 90% answered is a healthy beta, 80% answered needs some work. In the beta it's especially important that when new visitors ask questions they usually get a good answer.

1,371 avid users
24,724 total users

Excellent – Every site needs a solid group of core users to assist in moderating the site. We recommend:
150 users with 200+ rep (currently 1,371 users with 200+ rep)
10 users with 2,000+ rep (currently 148 users with 2,000+ rep)
5 users with 3,000+ rep (currently 99 users with 3,000+ rep)

2.1 answer ratio
Okay – 2.5 answers per question is good, only 1 answer per question needs some work. On a healthy site, questions receive multiple answers and the best answer is voted to the top.

16,561 visits/day Excellent – 1,500 visits per day is good, 500 visits per day needs some work. A great site benefits people outside the community. Eventually, 90% of a site's traffic should come from search engines.

The above means that we would need more questions per day. The most important of the numbers above, and alas, our weak spot in the statistic. But then, that is among the criteria on the way out – apparently – to consider for graduation.

There seem to be changes for the procedure underway and under the hood and undisclosed as of now. From what I gather: the whole graduation thing will be granularised? Meaning that post-graduation fetures will be addable to a site piece by piece as needed?

But these numbers alone aren't too reliable to predict a site's future, as StartupBusinessSE illustrates.

There are other problems to consider: the danger of being shut down because "graduation doesn't happen" isn't important anymore. Too many 'broken windows' on a site is!.

Positive signs for this site: community moderation is relatively reliable and reasonably quick, in my impression at least. Review queues are emptied quickly, SPAM and trolling often disappears faster than the feed subscription can post it to chat, moderators seem to be doing their job and participate regularly as users as well, with very low indication of mod-fatigue or user complaints (again: my personal impression).

Something not surveyed on Area51 but important indicator for site health would be participation on Meta.History.SE, i.e. here. That is subpar, by quite the margin. Question re-open rate is also on the list of 'improvable'.

As far as I know, the currently still valid official word would be:

Graduation, site closure, and a clearer outlook on the health of SE sites: The TL;DR:

When a site starts to consistently receive 10 questions/day, we’ll consider it for graduation.
If a public beta site does not produce consistently helpful content, and lacks the caretakers needed for flags and spam to get handled and our Be Nice policy to be upheld, it will be closed.

Summary

To get nearer to the "How to graduate this site", we clearly need more questions per day. And that is more good questions, I might add.

More participation on meta would be nice.

But then, I currently see no real need to really push for it. The WritingSE example indicates a certain level of arbitriness on the one hand and possibly less need overall on the other.

The threat of closure seems far from being a danger for this site.

It seems the other way around compared to what the question assumes: graduation doesn't assure quality, but we have to strive for more content and more quality before we can be considered for graduation.

2

Thank you for your answer LangCandC.

I understand now some fix or adjustment is going on about the graduation-system, the core part of which is yet unknown to us.

And I agree with this your part

Positive signs for this site: community moderation is relatively reliable and reasonably quick, in my impression at least. Review queues are emptied quickly, SPAM and trolling often disappears faster than the feed subscription can post it to chat, moderators seem to be doing their job and participate regularly as users as well, with very low indication of mod-fatigue or user complaints (again: my personal impression).

Exactly. Comparatively observing, though it is in my opinion too, this site is rather more "peaceful" than the other sites ( especially like ELL or ELUs ), and I am happy with that.

Now onto your summary.

To get nearer to the "How to graduate this site", we clearly need more questions per day. And that is more good questions, I might add.

That would be the most agonizing question every sites would like to solve, wouldn't it?

From what I observed, History SE has a bit 2 sided, there are either good questions or bad questions, comparatively no middle size questions, though, again in my personal opinion.

So, in order for us to "graduate" Beta, may be the fastest way is for the Meta SE to change the current graduation standard?

Hmmm....

Thank you again anyway for your answer.

  • Kentaro, we had a meta discussion a while ago - maybe 2017 sometime - where it was decided that to get more questions, we need higher quality questions. To do that, we came to a decision that this required better moderation - both stricter and more polite. I think in the past year, we have really improved. Eventually this site will get there, we just need to keep at it. – axsvl77 Apr 1 at 14:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .