7

I'm not convinced we'll be able to change their minds in short order with a surge of content.

We should instead focus on making sure all the content we have here is ready to go when we resubmit the site. As Robert Cartaino stated:

If you still believe your site will work, feel free to restart the proposal and prove it. That will give you more time to plan for a successful launch. You will definitely need more of a running start to create something viable. Slow starts have always struggled to maintain any level of traffic even after launch. Always. But rebooting a proposal to get that running start has created some of our most successful launches to date!

Call me crazy, but I suspect that the SE guys have pretty solid empirical evidence to support their closing. They share much of that data right on the Area 51 page. Let's look at the metrics they share (update 1 as of 2016-10-4 14:17 UTC):

  • Questions per day:
    • 10/day recommended, 6.3/day current
    • Update 1: 9.4/day
  • Percentage question answered:
    • 90% recommended, 79% current
    • Update 1: 84%
  • Users with 200+ rep:
    • 150 recommended, 20 current
    • Update 1: 28
  • Users with 2,000+ rep:
    • 10 recommended, 0 current
    • Update 1: 0
  • Users with 3,000+ rep:
    • 5 recommended, 0 current
    • Update 1: 0
  • Answers-per-question ratio:
    • 2.5 recommended, 1.9 current
    • Update 1: 2.0
  • Visits per day:
    • 1,500 recommended, 200 current
    • Update 1: 200

We're way, way off the recommended pace, and it's unlikely we can get all of these metrics up to recommended by Friday.

We should really focus on prepping for the restarted proposal. That means getting a critical mass of developers to participate, including a ton of non-MVPs.

Update 1: Added current stats as of 2016-10-4 14:17 UTC.

Update 2: Well, I guess we can convince them :)

| |
  • Thanks for updating these. It's great to see the progress we are making. – Dan Solovay Oct 4 '16 at 15:25
9

While you are correct in analyzing the metrics, there's something the StackExchange management should take into account: no one was aware that the required metrics must be fulfilled during the private beta. This was simply not communicated to us. If it was, we'd have chosen another strategy and concentrated on reaching proper metrics.

The reasonable thing to do would be to extend the private beta and give us a chance to regroup our efforts.

Closing the site and archiving the questions would be unreasonable in this light. Especially considering all the useful content that has been created.

| |
  • I don't necessarily disagree about the reasonable thing to do. I'm more concerned about how to handle the resubmission of the site once SE most likely closes the private beta on Friday. – Ed Schwehm Oct 4 '16 at 14:15
5

I tend to agree, but the fact that the site launch coincided with the MVP Summit and Symposium gives us a good argument, should SE choose to listen. But by continuing to press until the end (supply your culturally appropriate baseball/cricket/quidditch analogy) we strengthen our team for next season, and just maybe pull off a last moment miracle. I think we are all a lot more mindful of the metrics and the time-frame now, and will organize to crush them when we take this on in 2017.

If I were a coach, I would want my team scoring goals/runs/touchdowns/[whatever they do in cricket] until the very end, rather than saying "Oh well, it's hopeless." A team that fights is a team that comes back.

| |
  • 1
    Another sports metaphor would be to consider this as Game 1 of a multi-game series. It's late in the game, and it's pretty clear we're not going to win this game. We don't give up, of course, but we do look forward to Game 2 to see what we can do better in that game. Appreciate the attempt at sportsball metaphors, Dan :) – Ed Schwehm Oct 4 '16 at 14:16
  • Hardest part was keeping them appropriate for a non-US audience. :) – Dan Solovay Oct 4 '16 at 15:25
  • 2004 Red Sox. All I'm gonna say. – Dan Solovay Oct 5 '16 at 2:06
  • You do know I'm a Yankees fan, right? – Ed Schwehm Oct 5 '16 at 13:04
  • Which probably caused you to author your question. You were working from a limited data set. Those who remember being down 0-3 know things can turn around very suddenly. :P – Dan Solovay Oct 5 '16 at 15:02
4

There are a few quick wins, such as adding alternate answers to questions, it wouldn't take much to bump that up to the 2.5 required.

| |
3

Apart from the users count (voting people!) we are not that far from the criteria. We've gained a lot of questions (average increased almost over 2) over the night (or day). Perhaps there's still a chance?

| |
3

Apparently Yes! We can! We did it!

| |

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