The Axon Terminal

« first day (73 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4417 days later) »

Rarity

5:40 PM

GEMs

Steven Jeuris

@Rarity ?

Why did you decide on a nickname all of a sudden? You no longer want to associate yourself with your name? :)

Rarity

Diamonds

Rarity

6:01 PM

my avatar should be different too

Steven Jeuris

It is. don't worry. I still don't see the link with diamonds. :)

Rarity

Rarity likes gems

5 hours later…

Artem Kaznatcheev

10:50 PM

@Rarity I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I have very little to no interest in seeing a lay-audience brain/mind site. If I want that kind of information, I can just read pop-sci books. I would much rather struggle (and maybe fail) in trying to build a professional/high-level site than give up and have another popular "I read an article about brains/minds and have an obvious question" site.

@Rarity wow... I was SO confused by your name change.

Rarity

I'm well aware of what you want, but that doesn't appear to be what most of the community that exists wants and we've gotten near zero additional users at the level you want

Artem Kaznatcheev

I am just expressing my view, I am not trying to suggest that it agrees with the community

Rarity

Even if you don't like the "pop sci" bit of it, an actual surviving site means there;s a community we could draw from to make a more specific, research-only site, and research questions could still be welcome despite the extra inclusiveness

Artem Kaznatcheev

I am not a moderator, and so I think I am free to exercise my close and down votes to support the site I want

@Rarity We are welcoming already, how much more welcoming can we be? And where has it got us?

Rarity

We're not welcoming, that's the problem, we're undecided and unappealing to both groups of people

Artem Kaznatcheev

10:57 PM

I dunno, I would prefer to try for the harder goal

and if we fail, then do the easier option

then just give up

and go for the easy option

If you build (or partial build) a low-traffic research level site

then it is not hard to then proceed to advertise it to a lay audience if we decide that it is impossible to carry on as a research level site

on the other hand, building a low to medium traffic popular site

and then trying to use that to draw in experts

is probably harder than just starting with a blank site

I feel like we can decide to switch to an all-inclusive view at any time and not effect the site's long-term success as a lay-site much

on the other hand, we can't suddenly change the site from all-inclusive to research-level and expect to be able to attract researchers.

So if we go completely lay-audience, then we should be clear about it and say "we want to be a popular-science site, and not a tool for practitioners and researchers"

Rarity

We are failing, if we continue to fail like this the site will be deleted and we'll have to start again from the Area 51 process, with the heavy weight of failure on the new proposal

Artem Kaznatcheev

who has expressed these views of failure?

did I miss some activity on meta? goes to check

Rarity

the site turns off people and they never turn back, we can't just flip a switch

Artem Kaznatcheev

the lay-audience is nearly infinite

I have no fear of turning them off

Rarity

a big part of the problem is people see the content and it's not related to what they're interested in, and there's not enough content out there for just anyone, even with a psych degree, to be interested in

we're turning everyone off, including those with a research background

People like you don't seem to ever be happy either, for the very small amount of them we get. With no apparent source of new users of that sort I can't see a site possibly surviving based on them

Artem Kaznatcheev

11:04 PM

Are we currently failing though? Has some SE person said "if you keep this up we are going to shut you down"?

compare us to quant.stackexchange.com

for example

that site has SUPER LOW ACTIVITY

but it is of such high quality

and sure, they did not graduate

but no one has shut them down yet, either

(actually, it seems that the questions per day at quant.SE improved a lot... I remember seeing it at 0.7 at some point)

« first day (73 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4417 days later) »

all rooms