-3
$\begingroup$

From here:

enter image description here

I might even include a link or two to Space.SE.

Any thoughts on this?

Thoughts might include goodness of significant increase in traffic, new users (especially those completely new to the SE ecosystem itself), goodness of staying "beta", etc.

$\endgroup$
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ It is purely my decision to put a link on my site. No need for a meta question. $\endgroup$ – PearsonArtPhoto♦ Feb 11 '18 at 18:25
  • $\begingroup$ I think if it is about incoming links, then the post is offtopic, but in general, the links are useful. However, it required a lot of decoding, what is going here et al. About the site graduation: the last SE version is that it requires "10 questions per day on a regular basis". Although they still don't discluse what exactly they understand on "regular basis". Furthermore, there are examples as this rule wasn't held rigorously in both directions. If we check the list of all sites by the total number of questions, we can see that most sites $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Feb 11 '18 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh see the just-asked Is beta-graduation the goal here? With a limited reserve of high-quality answer-writers, might it present more challenges? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 11 '18 at 23:54
  • $\begingroup$ graduate roughly at 10000 questions, although it is probably not a rule, but a secondary effect. Comparing this to the historical site growth stats, I suspect to reach this limit roughly in 2020. However, the actual graduations are probably at least partially a per-case decision of the CMs, which obviously considers a lot of non-measurable things. For example, that Space Exploration is a popular topic in the U.S. again. I see some chance that Musk's car helps us a little bit now. $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Feb 11 '18 at 23:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ However, I am not sure. I think this question may be useful in the sense, that it makes clear: "1) we have no control what is pointing to us 2) but obviously, no website would dislike in general incoming links". In this sense, the question may be ontopic. If a mod does this little help for the site, it is a good thing from him, although I don't expect earthshaking chances from that, but it is obviously useful. Thus, I click reopen. $\endgroup$ – peterh says reinstate Monica Feb 12 '18 at 0:08
  • $\begingroup$ If it gets reopened, revise it to not be about scrutinising a particular individual, but instead just ask about a behaviour: "is it okay for people to link to this site on their personal sites?". No mention of any one person should be necessary to discuss that. $\endgroup$ – doppelgreener Feb 12 '18 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ @doppelgreener "is it okay?" would not really be the question. I'm really more interested in what kinds of "advertising" of the site people think might be beneficial and what kinds people think might not be. I actually tried to delete this question but received a stern-sounding automatic warning from the site because there is already a highly up voted answer here. So instead I've written a new and more thoughtful question and then left this comment $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 12 '18 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh OK, but "should this specific user do this with their personal site?" shouldn't be the question either. That's not explicitly what you're asking -- you're asking whether it'd be good for the site -- but it is implicitly what's being asked, since whether it's good or not for the site carries into whether we feel they should/shouldn't do that or whether we don't care. $\endgroup$ – doppelgreener Feb 12 '18 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ @doppelgreener you've said that twice now. Thanks. I'll also say again that I plan to delete the question. I'm waiting for the highly up voted answer to (hopefully) move to the new question so I can. I'd acually said it yesterday as well, but that was removed during comment clean-up. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 12 '18 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ @doppelgreener Oh I just realized that several comments have been cleaned up. I'd already made a substantial edit to the question, including the title, but then was advised to post it separately since it was so different. The edit was then reversed, and the question was reverted to its original form by mods. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 12 '18 at 20:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh Ok, I see what happened there with the revisions now. $\endgroup$ – doppelgreener Feb 12 '18 at 20:32
  • $\begingroup$ Since the only answer contains both an answer to a question not asked as well as a comment criticizing an even that did not happen I think it's better to go forward with the deletion despite the message that the SE interface shows. update: Unsuccessful. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 20 '18 at 0:38
  • $\begingroup$ @PearsonArtPhoto I've been unsuccessful deleting this question as you'd recommended to me in the (since-deleted) discussion. What next? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 20 '18 at 0:40
13
$\begingroup$

Surely SE has no control over incoming links, even if they are coming from a site run by a moderator. Incoming links are usually good (unless Google have changed their algorithms again) aren't they?

The things you mention - increase in traffic and new users are good and losing the "beta" tag is surely a good thing.

I have links on my, largely dormant blog, and I would be offended if anyone came to me and said I couldn't include them.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer! I've just asked Is beta-graduation the goal here? With a limited reserve of high-quality answer-writers, might it present more challenges? and I wonder if you'd be interested in adding this or a similar answer there as well. I'd also thought about deleting this question, but since you've already posted an answer here, I'm not sure how you'd feel about that. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 11 '18 at 23:21
  • $\begingroup$ "... if anyone came to me and said I couldn't include them." I don't see anything like that in the question. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 17 '18 at 15:21
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh that's disingenuous of you. That was there in the original version of the question that I answered. You have since edited the question quite radically. $\endgroup$ – ChrisF Feb 17 '18 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ Checking the edit history to the best of my abilities, I still don't see anything about "couldn't" or "shouldn’t” link. Except for the eleven minutes between 2018-02-11 23:07:42Z to 2018-02-11 23:18:13Z (5 hours after your answer was posted) the text has been fairly constant and as it appears now (except for removing a user's id from title an hour ago). If I am missing something, can you help me find where a "couldn't" or "shouldn’t” link type thought was ever expressed? The eleven minute period is associated with a since-deleted discussion that led to the posting of the second question. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 18 '18 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ @uhoh maybe I was reading something into the title that wasn't there but the original title was "Would putting links to Space Exploration Stack Exchange on PearsonArtPhoto's website be a good thing for this site?" which I thought was too personal and accusatory. $\endgroup$ – ChrisF Feb 18 '18 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Yes I had tried to delete this question completely, but the presence of your answer was blocking me from doing so. That's why I suggested here that you might consider answering there instead. And so do you still your "dangerous of you" comment is correct? $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 18 '18 at 14:19

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