2
\$\begingroup\$

As you all may have noticed, I am 'seeding' the site with a bunch of questions. If anyone thinks it inappropriate, please let me know.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
8
\$\begingroup\$

I wrote blog post addressing the issues of seeding and asking the first questions on a new site:

Asking the First Questions

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ For those too lazy to click, the answer is "No, you should not seed on Area 51 sites. They get all the momentum they need via the vote/beta format." And I think we see that here - there's more than enough activity already without adding fake activity. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - SE stop being evil Aug 22 '10 at 16:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Fair enough. If there isn't enough momentum without seeding, there isn't enough momentum to sustain the site without it afterwards either. \$\endgroup\$ – Tobiasopdenbrouw Aug 22 '10 at 18:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Tobiasopdenbrouw: That is very true. I've seen many attempts by SE 1.0 sites to artificially "simulate" different types of activity. It was unsustainable each time and didn't work. \$\endgroup\$ – Robert Cartaino Aug 23 '10 at 17:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, that's an excellent blog post. \$\endgroup\$ – Bryant Aug 26 '10 at 22:50
4
\$\begingroup\$

I'm good with it, although I hope someone does the same for some other games. I badly don't want us to get too D&D 4e-centric. Commented on one of the build questions with a minor concern.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's just that 4e is my 'borderline to get into' system. You'll note my other pets are universalis and shadowrun. But there's much much much more out there. \$\endgroup\$ – Tobiasopdenbrouw Aug 22 '10 at 18:18
4
\$\begingroup\$

Actually, I'll add a separate point - I just noticed all your questions are community wiki instead. I think this is totally the wrong use of CW. In my view, CW should be generally "smaller", made up of high value FAQs and lists. Spitting out random questions and just marking them CW is bad - I assume it's to not be rep-whoring, which is good, but in that case probably not posting them is better. Our CW is already by this point a big mix of unrelated junk that at first view doesn't look different from the main site!!!

More followup in the "what should we use CW for" question but I thought I'd note it here.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's neither random (I am genuinely interested in the answers) nor rep-whoring. As to the CW: I've not been doing so in 'regular RPG', but I may have been doing so in meta too much. \$\endgroup\$ – Tobiasopdenbrouw Aug 22 '10 at 18:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Link to How should we use Community Wiki? \$\endgroup\$ – LeguRi Aug 23 '10 at 13:21
3
\$\begingroup\$

I think at this point, while we are in private beta, it seems okay, since it's important for us to build up a question base. If someone were seeding later with questions that they didn't necessarily actually need answers to, that might be different.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Maybe for this beta, maybe, but I think we shouldn't seed too much. Questions should be honest questions. I know I personally don't feel like answering un-genuine questions, because I have other priorities than snapping up rep. And part of the point is to see what happens organically, what questions are really FAQs and not just someone thinking they're being clever.

I'd vote "only ask legit questions."

And on the 4e thing - yeah, I don't want to see this get too 4e-ey either, and I'll note that some of your questions like "Int vs Wis" would be better scoped to all D&D or even wider than just 4.0 - if I had a way to "ignore all posts tagged dd4.0" I'd be planning to enable it soon, as there's a lot of stuff on it and I don't play it.

| |
\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

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