2

Take a look at the three first tag pages, there are two things to notice:

  • There are tags that obviously get more attention than the majority of tags, for example .

  • There are tags that barely get attention, and tags that are just missing.

    and only have two questions, there are no questions about the .

I gave instruments as an example, but you could notice the same for other topics that aren't instruments.

We currently have 276 visits/day as noted on our Area 51 proposal.

1,500 visits per day is good, 500 visits per day is worrying. A great site benefits people outside the community. Eventually, 90% of a site's traffic should come from search engines.

Note the last sentence, other communities work great because a lot of people just find the questions.

So, if we want this site to survive we need to cover more topics more in-depth.

By having more topics covered that fit under our scope we will draw attention from more than just pianists and singers, and by adding more depth in tags that barely have questions we provide enough information for new visitors so that they have reason to stay.

As outlined by Matthew our questions have influence on our sites future, so they should be good:

To summarize this whole idea:

Our site is about "musical practice & performance" and meant for "musicians", we should makes sure that for example "trumpet players" see good value in our site...

...and more important: that they can find our site.

— Musical Practice & Performance Chat

7
  • I don't think the site is meant only for musicians, and it is not just about practice and performance. You should be welcoming to new users and help them improve the quality of their question to become better question askers.
    – user107
    May 15 '11 at 6:37
  • A good question does not need to come from an expert, we should teach non-expert users how to ask good quality questions that experts would like to answer (and read other answers). ps: I think decisions about site should be made on meta not on chat since meta has higher participation and better feedback structure.
    – user107
    May 15 '11 at 6:54
  • @Kaveh: As I previously said you are welcome to help discuss that. However, I don't see this comment thread as the right place to do that. I don't see how your comment about experts or decisions applies here, I didn't say anything within that context. The transcript from the chat is merely discussion or explanation that would simply not belong in a comment thread on this question, and the chat more often has higher participation than the meta. Please keep your feedback relevant to the question, thank you... :)
    – Tamara Wijsman
    May 15 '11 at 13:34
  • @Kaveh: For your intention, I am welcoming and I am helping people to become better askers. There is always going to be some hassle when a lot of users first come together into a new community, so guidance and moderation (based on the early decisions from our community, which can still be discussed if there is disagreement) is required to some extent to prevent this site from becoming a disaster...
    – Tamara Wijsman
    May 15 '11 at 13:54
  • And even on the guidance and moderation level, there yet remain some clashes which we try to solve in a polite way. For example, you could sometimes see me and @MatthewRead disagree because we're both trying to do good to the community. Then the community would jump in and makes a decision, as we are a community-driven website. Yet we agree and help each other at other places for the good. Feel free to talk to me on the chat if we don't want to risk comments getting removed because they are off-topic...
    – Tamara Wijsman
    May 15 '11 at 13:57
  • @Tom, my comment was regarding what was stated at the summery part of your question, and I think it is clearly related to what is stated there. The comment about welcoming was not directed towards any particular user (including you), it was a general comment about the atmosphere of the site (I can give examples but prefer not to as it doesn't seem to be helpful). I agree that moderation is required (otherwise I would not be a moderator) but as Jeff and Joel say the best way to moderate is to lead by example. In short I am for more guidance and less punishment. :)
    – user107
    May 16 '11 at 7:01
  • @Kaveh: Please read my individual responses, I don't understand how some of them are relevant. Your second and last sentence made it look like you were talking to me explicitly. However, I partially agree with part of them and you are of course free to make general statements, in which case I wouldn't have replied.
    – Tamara Wijsman
    May 16 '11 at 12:02
4

As per http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/07/area-51-asking-the-first-questions/, be very careful when providing "seed questions". Ensure they are good, non-basic, interesting questions. Don't post a clarinet question just so we have a clarinet question. From that post:

You are going to get the site you build.

Keep that in mind!

1
2

I think we need more rock'n roll. The questions so far are often very theoretical, and that's awesome, don't take me wrong. But when the questions are only to and from serious students of music, the target audience is much smaller than if we can get questions for wanna-be rock stars. And the wanna-be rock stars will benefit from questions about musical theory as well, so it's a win-win situation.

Unfortunately I have searched my inner teenage rock-star wannabe, but he was buried in incompetence so long ago that I forgot what questions he had. :-)

1
  • Agree %100. . . . .
    – luser droog
    Aug 19 '14 at 20:49

You must log in to answer this question.

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