According to the Area51 site for CG, we need some help to get out of beta. Currently, the site averages 1.4-1.5 questions per day, quite far from the necessary 15.

In an effort to help, I'm personally trying to think of as many questions as I can, but I don't want to spam everyone with sub-par questions or those that may be too similar to others. However, I did post two questions that were related, but different enough that it warranted two separate posts. I had in my head a few more along the same lines, but with relatively lackluster response, I decided to hold off.

Generally speaking (with regard to the beta status of the site), which should be the deciding factor in posting questions in a series: a high number of simply satisfactory posts (not something that would get no response or votes, but also not stellar), or a lower number of very high quality posts?


I doubt that CodeGolf will every reach 15 questions per day. I mean, who would answer them?

That metric is for a usual Stack Exchange site, and I assume that Jeff and Shog9 don't expect that of this site as it would simply be silly.

If I had to guess I would go with the "visits per day" figure being the big hold-up. And perhaps the voting rate. I certainly applaud any effort to get more good questions onto the site, but as you say when should lean on the good part of that phrase.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Does a lot of hard refreshing help/count? ;-) \$\endgroup\$ – Gaffi Jun 8 '12 at 3:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ The questions "Viewed" counter seems to count unique visitors so I doubt it. \$\endgroup\$ – dmckee Jun 8 '12 at 4:20
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It isn't just about the metrics seen on that page, that decides whether a site graduates. They also try to see if the site has a self-sustaining, mature community. (I've met up with Jin Yang at the Stack Overflow meetup this year, and while I'm not quoting anybody above, he did have many good insights about how they decide when a site graduates.) \$\endgroup\$ – Chris Jester-Young Jun 8 '12 at 4:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ With 10 times of the users we have today we could probably produce 10 times the questions, but who would answer them? You wouldn't try anymore to answer every question, but maybe become a specialist for primes, ascii-art or such. But I agree in general: On SO I can sometimes answer 10 questions a day and could answer more if others weren't faster and I don't just want to repeat in my own words. We have a very different answers/q ratio here, too: On SO, one expects 1 or 2 good answers at the top - here I expect 1 good answer per language and therefore often 10 good answers. \$\endgroup\$ – user unknown Jun 10 '12 at 16:19

I would say that the deciding factor in posting questions in a series isn't the answers (although I would hesitate to post part 2 if part 1 only got one or two), but the questions. My Minksky register machine series was intended to have three stages; the first one got 17 upvotes and 4 favorites, so after a good pause I posted the second part, which only has 4 upvotes and 1 answer. The third part is postponed indefinitely because I don't see the interest.

As a rule of thumb I would say that posting two very similar questions almost at the same time is counterproductive. Give people time to think about the problem space and come back to improve their answers.

Finally, echoing dmckee's point about emphasis on good questions, use the sandbox (or chat, but I don't think anyone reads that) to get feedback before posting.

  • \$\begingroup\$ And that's generally what happened here, except I perhaps didn't wait quite as long as I could have before posting the next. I can wait a little longer next time. :-) \$\endgroup\$ – Gaffi Jun 8 '12 at 11:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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