@TomAu I tried to address the underlying philosophy of why we allowed separate sites in my answer here, and why they're allowed to continue.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer: You improve the standing of the site by asking good questions and by publicizing interesting questions. Most of these sites start out with steady traffic going kind of horizontally for a while. Then, at some unpredictable point, POW the site hits a critical mass "tipping point" and the traffic starts climbing inexorably. But to reach that point, the questions have to attract users. Currently, almost 60% of this site's traffic comes from questions people found in Google. But to keep those users and get them asking good questions, the quality has to be there.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer: Don't conflate the issue of subjectivity with quality. There's Good Subjective. I'm talking about letting less-than-excellent questions (which do not belong) slide in the name of maintaining a higher question count.

@LittleBobbyTables: Yes, please read the linked blog post. I have some pretty strong opinions about the wholesale seeding of questions. There's a big difference between encountering (and posting) a particularly interesting question you saw today versus trying to "cover all rules questions" to make up for a low question count. That will go badly. Non-organic participation will come across as transparent (it wont work) and may actually detract from further participation. Folks love answering questions and helping people; Nobody wants to be given busy work and homework assignments.