I posted a request on Meta SO, that questions "closed as a software recommendation" have the closure complaint modified to suggest that SR be used as an alternative.

I'm posting the link here, so that SR-meta people might respond here or at Meta SO as they see fit: Changed response to Recommendation questions now that there's a site for them?

  • 12
    It's probably a little early to start making changes like this for a site that has only just entered public beta.
    – Flyk
    Feb 19, 2014 at 9:52
  • 3
    Definitly agree with @Flyk – and left my comment over there. Even if included at a later time, it should at least include a link to our "quality requirements" (What is required for a question to contain "enough information"?), or we get flooded with questions we had to close straight-away (guaranteed; I've already closed enough of them over at Android Enthusiasts to know what to expect just from there).
    – Izzy Mod
    Feb 19, 2014 at 10:53
  • I remember some moderator posting here that the policy is not to move questions from establised sites to beta sites.
    – Bernhard
    Feb 19, 2014 at 14:38
  • OK, don't move them. Just say SR exists and add a caveat. Read my revised question over at SO.
    – Ira Baxter
    Feb 19, 2014 at 14:55
  • We're basically saying the same thing on both sites. Since this is an administrative issue for Stack Overflow (and we don't really allow cross-posting), I'm going to close this here so not to split up the discussion. Feb 19, 2014 at 20:52

2 Answers 2


I posted a response to your question on mSO, as figured I'd leave it here too so that people here can inspect it.

I really don't know if we should do this. Sure, it'll get us a ton of traffic. But do we want that traffic? By the very nature of the site itself, we're not going to be starving of users.

Another thing to consider: SR isn't (and shouldn't be) a 'no-rules shopping site'. We try to keep the questions in as manageable a form as possible. We so far have a very small core userbase, and no dedicated diamond mods. I'm not sure we could handle a much bigger flood than we already are.

One more thing: Since we have our rules there, people need to follow them. The people that post recommendation questions on SO aren't very likely to read our rules either. That's another thing to consider.

All in all: I don't think we should be pointing people to SR at least until we get our PT mods and we show that we can handle the current flood.

  • What makes them more likes to read the rules at the SR site, if they discover it on their own?
    – Ira Baxter
    Feb 19, 2014 at 14:54
  • 1
    That's not what I'm saying - I'm saying that the people that break the rules on SO aren't the people we want to be inviting here until we get mods, have a strong core userbase, and the capacity to deal with an SO-sized flood. We don't right now.
    – Undo
    Feb 19, 2014 at 14:56

Let's take things slowly. The site has been public for less than a day. We need the site to grow gradually. To accommodate an increasing number of questions, we also need an increasing number of answerers and of janitors.

Our roadmap should look somewhat like this:

  • Private beta. Small experiment, establish some basic rules. (Done.)
  • Public beta. Let people discover the site naturally. (Just started.)
    Already at this stage, whenever SR is mentioned, be sure to mention our question quality guidelines.
  • Accept moderator-initiated migrations from other Stack Exchange sites. We'll work out a protocol for how moderators (who may not be familiar with SR) should decide when to migrate, based on our experience from the early public beta.
  • Progressively start mentioning the site in more and more places. At this stage, I expect that sites such as Stack Overflow, Super User, Android, Programmers, Security (not intended to be an exhaustive list) which currently have a close reason about recommendations will reference our site. The close reason must prominently mention our quality guidelines.
  • If this site graduates¹, then the aforementioned close reason may turn into a migration target — but only if we have confidence that migrations will tend to be of sufficient quality, which is doubtful.

For the time being, I request that whenever people mention SR.SE, they mention the quality guidelines. On Ira's MSO question, I've proposed comment templates to use on SR.SE question candidates and on “Ask on SR” comments that lack a link to the guidelines; SR regulars: please comment on my MSO answer if you disagree wiht my wording.

¹ “If” rather than “when” not only because this site might fail, but also because it might succeed: if we manage to establish quality guidelines that can be followed on other sites, then SR has no reason to exist and can be folded back into the natural sites.

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