The latest criteria for considering site graduation is 10 questions/day.

As we are all painfully aware (2015, 2013, 2010), we have been in endless Beta forever, and that doesn't appear to be changing any time soon.

It seems obvious to me that this site has demonstrated its stability, continued interest, and the dedication of its user base.

I am concerned about three things with this continued "beta":

  1. The site design looks generic and temporary. The "beta" label makes it hard to take us seriously, or realise that this is a stable community. And it deeply frustrates those of us who have worked hard to make this site viable.
  2. We still have the same unelected moderators we appointed 6(!) years ago, and no process for the community to consider replacements. Obviously I am one of those moderators, but I don't see why this community should be expected to accept my benevolent dictatorship for 6 years, with no expectation of when or if it will ever change.
  3. We are low-priority for site-specific improvements (e.g. chess board renderer, MTG autocard improvements).

Robert Cartaino makes an interesting argument here about the beta process. In essence i) the nomenclature is wrong and ii) this doesn't need to be an all or nothing process.

I strongly urge the StackOverflow team to look seriously at the idea of "unbundling" the components of the so-called "graduation" process. I don't think this limbo is fair to sites like ours. At a minimum we need to lose this unfair "beta" label, get a distinct CSS theme, and allow community elections.

| |
  • 4
    The question-rate metric is as much about prioritizing SE's resources as anything else. All of the stuff you list takes time and people, and directing those toward the areas that need it the most is essential. So... Question rate as a proxy for need. It's all very communist, Bernie would approve. – Shog9 Feb 20 '16 at 17:56
  • 8
    @Shog9 - I understand the need for prioritisation. And question rate is clearly a powerful proxy for value. I am arguing that it is not correct for any site to be in the position we are in, 6 years on. To put it another way, it would be simplistic and wrong to use question rate alone as the prioritisation driver for all sites. Perhaps our situation is unusual, I don't know. But it deserves closer attention. – ire_and_curses Feb 20 '16 at 18:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .