7 replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
6 replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link
5 replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

As time has worn on since last-year-ishsince last-year-ish, and various (ITG) questions worn onworn on GSE denizensGSE denizens, has the community position on them changed? Half the time they seem ridiculously vague, and how answers are voted on seems totally random, which seems to distort the point of reps (though much less so than some other things). The whole class seems half-way towards being a recommendation (but with very specific requirements).

Often people say that because it's an ITG question, it's immune to this or that policy, e.g. specificity, which is applied to every other question.

They do, however, occasionally help people, and they are obviously gaming-related with a singular correct answer (we hope), so it's a fit for a QA site...somewhere..., but here it leverages the large pool of experience among hundreds of gamers.

If we want them to hang around, can we develop any specific rules that are as objective as possible to determine if the question is good enough to hang around or too vague to be of use?


Does anyone have the following statistics?

  • How many new users come to the site in a given time?
  • How many stay?
  • How many of those new users started with an ITG question?
  • How many of those stay?

As time has worn on since last-year-ish, and various (ITG) questions worn on GSE denizens, has the community position on them changed? Half the time they seem ridiculously vague, and how answers are voted on seems totally random, which seems to distort the point of reps (though much less so than some other things). The whole class seems half-way towards being a recommendation (but with very specific requirements).

Often people say that because it's an ITG question, it's immune to this or that policy, e.g. specificity, which is applied to every other question.

They do, however, occasionally help people, and they are obviously gaming-related with a singular correct answer (we hope), so it's a fit for a QA site...somewhere..., but here it leverages the large pool of experience among hundreds of gamers.

If we want them to hang around, can we develop any specific rules that are as objective as possible to determine if the question is good enough to hang around or too vague to be of use?


Does anyone have the following statistics?

  • How many new users come to the site in a given time?
  • How many stay?
  • How many of those new users started with an ITG question?
  • How many of those stay?

As time has worn on since last-year-ish, and various (ITG) questions worn on GSE denizens, has the community position on them changed? Half the time they seem ridiculously vague, and how answers are voted on seems totally random, which seems to distort the point of reps (though much less so than some other things). The whole class seems half-way towards being a recommendation (but with very specific requirements).

Often people say that because it's an ITG question, it's immune to this or that policy, e.g. specificity, which is applied to every other question.

They do, however, occasionally help people, and they are obviously gaming-related with a singular correct answer (we hope), so it's a fit for a QA site...somewhere..., but here it leverages the large pool of experience among hundreds of gamers.

If we want them to hang around, can we develop any specific rules that are as objective as possible to determine if the question is good enough to hang around or too vague to be of use?


Does anyone have the following statistics?

  • How many new users come to the site in a given time?
  • How many stay?
  • How many of those new users started with an ITG question?
  • How many of those stay?
    Post Closed as "too localized" by juan
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackGaming/status/106796565011767296
4 added 220 characters in body
source | link
3 added 27 characters in body
source | link
2 added 189 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link