Timeline for New Site Name and Scope Proposals
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
78 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:01 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 17:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 17:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Mar 16, 2017 at 17:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Aug 3, 2016 at 15:53 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 311 characters in body |
| Jul 21, 2016 at 20:29 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 28 characters in body |
| Jul 21, 2016 at 19:46 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 673 characters in body |
| Jul 21, 2016 at 19:13 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 2834 characters in body |
| Jul 20, 2016 at 5:22 | comment | added | Ross | In regards to the complete SDLC. You missed the part beyond testing! While I would say it's mainly documentation, others would also include sunset evaluations and ongoing maintenance. These are absolutely part of S.E. in both education and practical application. | |
| Jul 18, 2016 at 5:02 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 65 characters in body |
| Jul 8, 2016 at 20:57 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @LightnessRacesinOrbit: just because Ana wishes that does not mean it will be possible. The experts of this community here have a strong idea about what the focus of the site is, and restricting it to four bullet points will always mean to leave out an important part which belongs to minimum basic definition of software engineering. | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 16:43 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @Rachel: Anyone can edit regardless of community wiki status. I don't really care whose fault it is, I'm just pointing out that this answer in its current form violates the requirements set forth by Stack Exchange. | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 16:13 | comment | added | Rachel | @LightnessRacesinOrbit It's changed a bit since the first revision.... it's a community wiki, so anyone can edit. Personally I think trying to limit to 4 bullets is too few for the site scope, but I do think the current version listed could use some pruning again... | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 10:56 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | "Software Engineering"? Really? Is that "SE"? Or is that "SE.SE"? This won't be confusing at all! | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 9:17 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | Ana said "No more than four bullets, no multi-line comma-separated lists, no gerrymandering". That has been violated several times in the proposed text. | |
| Jun 29, 2016 at 14:40 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @CaptainMan I would assume so. The logo is changing to reflect the new name. Some level of effort to change the graphic design. This whole thing is about rebranding the site to better indicate what we are about. If SE says that it's off the table, it's off the table. If it's on the table, I suspect it will be like other sites coming out of beta - a graphic designer will do something, post it on Meta, and get community feedback. | |
| Jun 29, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Captain Man | @ThomasOwens Is the UI even up for change? I didn't see it mentioned in the quote in the question. If it is up for change I think it's better discussed in a separate question. | |
| Jun 29, 2016 at 13:23 | comment | added | Braiam | I think that you should also write the "do not ask" page. The scope doesn't mention license-y kind of questions, which is one of the biggest grips. | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 23:02 | comment | added | D.W. | (2) Change the entire bit "You can ask ... for more details." to just one sentence saying "See What topics can I ask about here? for a description of what topics you can ask about." (3) Delete "We don't give legal advice", as it's not a common enough problem to be worth adding here. (These are all separable and you could implement one or more without implementing the other, if one of these is too controversial.) | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 23:00 | comment | added | D.W. | I suggest you make the interstitial more concise. The more concise it is, the more people will read it. It needs more focus, to focus on the one or two most common problems. Three suggestions towards that goal: (1) move the sentence "We're not a forum; don't expect things to work the same way as other forums do." to right before "We don't answer survey questions...", and delete "It's always a good idea to survey the landscape of a new site before participating. Take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the site and its participants." | |
| Jun 27, 2016 at 22:55 | comment | added | D.W. | I think you could omit "algorithms and data structures" from the bullet list without too much loss. Conciseness is a virtue. Many algorithms and data structures questions would probably be better off on Computer Science SE (not Data Science), so I think you could remove that from the bullet list without harm. I'm not trying to argue you change your scope or make those questions out-of-scope; I'm just trying to help you shorten the bullet list, and arguing that you could omit it without great loss. | |
| Jun 24, 2016 at 8:31 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @Hack-R: data science SE is still a beta, and its scope (though not clearly defined on their help page) looks to me much more restricted. Moreover, "algorithms and data structures" was always a topic which fits well to the conceptual programming focus of "Programmer's", and it IMHO should be also a valid topic on "Software Engineering.SE". | |
| Jun 24, 2016 at 4:27 | comment | added | Hack-R | That's 50% more bullet points than they wanted. I would suggest to get rid of the algorithms and data structures bullet point as that's more in the domain of Data Science SE anyway. | |
| Jun 22, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Rachel | @Trilarion Sounds good, I made the modification | |
| Jun 22, 2016 at 14:29 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited body |
| Jun 21, 2016 at 21:23 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | I would just change the order. "students, practitioners, and researchers" to "practitioners, researchers and students". Clearly, practitioners should outnumber the other two categories. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 18:37 | comment | added | Rachel | @GrandmasterB Personally I think students are welcome here, including their homework questions, as long as they are ontopic and follow the other rules for questions. I just copied what the other answers had though, and the tag line was from Thomas Owen's answer and copied from other CS sites. Perhaps leave a comment to voice your concerns to him there? | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 18:02 | comment | added | GrandmasterB | I'm concerned that the proposed tagline, "... is a question and answer site for students...", will lead us to be inundated with homework problems. I'd recommend something more like "... is a question and answer site for professional software engineers and those interested in the field". | |
| Jun 6, 2016 at 8:41 | comment | added | bish | Quality Assurance and Testing -> sqa.stackexchange.com | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 23:30 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 5 characters in body |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 14:48 | comment | added | Rachel | @RobertHarvey And yes, I am quite confident that a name change with significantly help. I'm not saying it will fix everything, but I am confident it will greatly reduce the number of off topic questions we get. :) | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 14:48 | comment | added | Rachel | @RobertHarvey I reread it a few times, and it doesn't go into our past history as much as I thought it did, and isn't bad in its current form :) As for length, I was thinking more in the context of the full /advice page. It would be nice if we could see how your text would fit into the existing page. This kind of page is definitely needed though, and I know I posted something years ago on meta.SE about how our ask question page should be more like reddits with a simple upfront list of dos and donts... | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 14:43 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @Rachel: Finally, you seem quite confident that a name change and a name change alone will fix the problem. It won't. The name change is essential, but it requires more than that; it requires that users be informed when they ask a question, and the way you do that is by informing them. Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled why you're opposed to that. It can't just be about length. | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 14:36 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @Rachel: The "What We're Not" section is already condensed as much as I think I can make it without losing information. You could lose the "So what can I ask" section, I suppose (I already told Thomas Owens I was willing to lose that section if it's solely about length and there is no other way), but frankly I think it's useful to state the scope in the interstitial. Remember, the interstitial is the only thing that new users are likely to see. | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 14:30 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @Rachel: I have two concerns about the length, and only two: it should all fit on one page (on a 1080p monitor), and the most important stuff should be at the top, where it is most likely to be read. Compare with stackoverflow.com/help/on-topic, which is longer but would still make a perfectly good interstitial. Beyond that, I'm not all that sympathetic to viewpoints like "a maximum of four bullets." If you think this is long, you should have seen WSOiN (which really was too long). | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 14:27 | comment | added | Rachel | @RobertHarvey I agree with you that we should have a short blurb about the Ask Question DOs and DONTs at the point of asking a question for users. What I think needs more discussion is the actual wording. The wording you proposed is great for a site titled "Programmers", however I am not sure that it is all needed for a site named "Software Engineering". I'd like to discuss that separately, and not mix it in with a summary of our Name/On-Topic changes for SE. | |
| Jun 2, 2016 at 11:52 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 3 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 22:03 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1 character in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 20:48 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @Rachel: I'm fascinated by the reluctance (by both you and the folks at SE corporate) to tell people right up front what they need to know to be successful at using the site. Which do you suppose is more frustrating: being told privately what not to do up front before asking, or being chastised publicly by gnat after asking? | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 20:35 | comment | added | Rachel | @RobertHarvey I didn't realize this at first, but we can add /advice to the end of any Ask Question page to view how it actually looks for new users. I don't think the question you just posted addresses this at all, although in the comments I agree this page is very useful. I really don't think we need to air our old dirty laundry for new users with a list of what not to ask at this point though, and it should instead just be something short and simple that tells the user "hey we have rules! Read them before posting" | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:53 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @Rachel: New users never see that material. The interstitial page is the only chance we have to make our case to new users who choose to post random crap, either deliberately or out of ignorance. An interstitial guarantees that they can no longer claim ignorance. | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:44 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 9 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:37 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 4 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:29 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 238 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:28 | comment | added | Rachel | @ThomasOwens I won't edit it out again, but I think it should be discussed separately. I didn't realize the site already has a bunch of extra content for new users asking questions, and adding a huge wall of text to air our history doesn't seem necessary. I think that rebranding the name should be a fresh start, and we shouldn't start trying to explain our history to everyone if it isn't needed. | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:25 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 238 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:21 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @Rachel It isn't that long after you use more width of a page and a smaller font, like the ServerFault page. It's also a good idea to do everything at once, especially with our history, we don't want people claiming ignorance. There's absolutely no way to do that now. | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:20 | comment | added | Rachel | @ThomasOwens I still don't think we need an interstitial page after the name change, or that it needs to be that long. That's why I left it out of this answer. I think it's something that should be addressed separately from the Name/FAQ change. | |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:19 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 1 character in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 19:19 | history | edited | Robert Harvey | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 2 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 18:59 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 2350 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 18:52 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 2350 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 18:27 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 440 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 10:07 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 607 characters in body |
| Jun 1, 2016 at 10:04 | vote | accept | Thomas OwensMod | ||
| May 29, 2016 at 11:37 | comment | added | Bent | "Q&A site for students, practitioners, and researchers of software engineering and related fields" I would not use the term 'students' as this would indicate that homework is relevant. I do know 'students' is linked to 'of software engineering', people less well versed in the english language will not. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 21:11 | comment | added | gnat | @RobertHarvey since site-specific part is mod editable, we can simply use it to highlight most-annoying off-topic of the day ("cr@p du jour" if you wish) and update when needed. At least it seems to be the way SF folks use it: their help/on-topic lists 6 bullets but interstitial picks one of them: "...make sure that it is about managing information technology systems in a business environment. If your question concerns personal equipment, try asking on Super User instead." | |
| May 28, 2016 at 17:40 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | @Shog9: Are you referring to the interstitial page I have written here?. I've already cut it down to as short as I think I can possibly make it. We might be able to get it down to two paragraphs, but it won't include the friendly fluff, and it won't say anything about what is on-topic. I figure we have one chance to present the critical stuff in a way that new users can't say they haven't seen it. They can figure out everything else later. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 17:17 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 1536 characters in body |
| May 28, 2016 at 17:15 | comment | added | Rachel | @Shog9 Ok, thanks. I was thinking about it, and honestly I think after the name change this really won't be needed. I'd like to keep it as an option for consideration if things don't change, but I really think we won't need it. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 0:24 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | IIRC, it's one short paragraph at the top. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 23:47 | comment | added | Rachel | @Shog9 As a side note, what does the ServerFault page contain that is custom? Is it the entire 6 section text, or just the area above the Ask Question box? | |
| May 27, 2016 at 23:44 | comment | added | Rachel | @Shog9 It does look a lot smaller when put in the main site font, about half the length if I remember correctly (ie. 4 lines becomes 2). We've encountered this discrepancy before with the FAQ and On Topic page. That said, maybe we could remove the bullet points and just link to the On Topic page instead if you want it shorter :) | |
| May 27, 2016 at 22:51 | comment | added | Shog9 StaffMod | A six-paragraph interstitial is a bit excessive. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 19:46 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 13 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 19:35 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 174 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 19:28 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 7 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 19:23 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 226 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 19:09 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 441 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 18:19 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 14 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 18:19 | comment | added | gnat | @ThomasOwens so far I have seen rather skeptical assessments of the interstitial efficiency. Though these were coming from SE team folks who generally disliked this feature at smaller sites in the past. Probably works checking with SF moderators are they satisfied with how it works for them. (I recently noticed that unlike Programmers SF doesn't require registration to ask. But still, their pages look so much cleaner than ours, what kind of magic do they use?) | |
| May 27, 2016 at 18:14 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | @gnat OK. Either way, I don't want a list of things on-topic here on the interstitial unless mods can edit it. I don't want to bug SE if we want to clarify wording in the future. The idea is good, for sure. Especially given the changes we're going through. | |
| May 27, 2016 at 18:09 | comment | added | gnat | @ThomasOwens at SF these are two different pages, we already discussed this :) | |
| May 27, 2016 at 18:08 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | I think the interstitial page needs to be more like Server Fault's. It looks like Server Fault's page is the /help/how-to-ask page. I would like to see a different order here, though. It should go "be on-topic", "be specific", "make it relevant to others", "keep an open mind", and "search, and research". | |
| May 27, 2016 at 18:02 | history | edited | Thomas OwensMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 487 characters in body |
| May 27, 2016 at 17:58 | history | edited | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added algorithms and data structures back in since we think they do need their own dedicated line |
| S May 27, 2016 at 17:48 | history | answered | Rachel | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S May 27, 2016 at 17:48 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Rachel |