(This is really "For Your Information" rather than a question)

According to Area51, we're 11 days out from "being evaluated". You can see our current rating here. We get 3 "okay"s and 2 "excellents". Comparing us with some of the other sites on Area51 makes it look as though that's "okay" - only math.SX gets 5 "excellents", I think.

Still, perhaps it's worth thinking about what we can do to make the site more active if/when it launches.

2 Answers 2


Down to 1 excellent, 4 okays, I think because something about answer ratio changed.

On Please do not close GIS SE, Joel Spolsky reiterates the point that answer quality is key:

as long as the content on the site is high quality and people can get answers to their questions, you shouldn't worry about the site actually being closed. In the meantime you should be voting a lot to help build up the number of users on that site with moderation privileges

and incidentally reminding us of what we can do to make the site more active if/when it launches. You can earn the suffrage badge right now, if you haven't already...

  • Yes, I didn't think to note down the exact criteria when I looked so I can't be sure but I do think that something to do with the "answer ratio" changed. Oct 20, 2010 at 12:50
  • The evaluation site states that "2.5 answers per question is good". We're at 2.44 right now, and I'm quite sure that we were above 2.5 a few weeks ago.
    – lockstep
    Oct 21, 2010 at 16:43
  • What a strange metric. One could easily go add worthless answers to questions with fewer than 2.5 answers.
    – TH.
    Oct 22, 2010 at 7:41
  • @TH. I'm guessing if a beta site actually had a bunch of people doing just that, it would have an unwanted impact on the human review part of the evaluation... Seriously, if some of us were to look for questions on the unanswered list that would benefit from answers, that would be a good thing. Oct 22, 2010 at 8:19
  • I think we're doing fine with the the answered percentage. It is excellent after all. Not that I'm suggesting this be done, but when it comes to users, we're not doing so well with users who have rep more than 200 but that would be easy to change by upvoting answers by people who are close.
    – TH.
    Oct 22, 2010 at 8:26
  • @TH.: This will also affect the average answers per question. It's a good thing to do in any case: I've been doing it on SO since the beginning of the year. The 200 rep target is completely arbitrary: with the non-trainer-wheels privileges scale, you don't get any interesting privileges until 500 rep - I don't know why that isn't the first cut-off. In any case, I think it's a near-certainty that this site will pass the evaluation without any umms or ahhs. Oct 22, 2010 at 8:50
  • Good point about average answers.
    – TH.
    Oct 22, 2010 at 8:53

Browsing around the SO blog and other related stuff, it appears that voting is the key. Or rather, the number of high-rep users, but we only get those by voting.

So ... go back to your constituency and vote.

You must log in to answer this question.

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