The most popular answer by far on Site Rename Poll, Round Two! was to rename the site to Music: Theory and Practice.

but, it's been decided 3 answers down by a small section of the community that the name will be Music: Practice and Theory.

I don't feel that this change was made clear enough, being that I only found out when the rename announcement came out. Practice and Theory has fewer votes, It shouldn't be chosen just because the high rep users decide they prefer it.

this will likely be the last chance for a long while, better to kick up a fuss now than in 6 months when it's solidified!

So, am I justified in thinking the popular vote should rule? what do you guys think on this?

  • Well, yes. But the reason for the change has been documented on the other meta questions. – NReilingh Nov 7 '14 at 14:05
  • where? I've just noticed that the order was Theory and Practice on meta.music.stackexchange.com/questions/928/… with no reason for it to be switched around. – Alexander Troup Nov 7 '14 at 14:08
  • I'm on mobile, so I can't really reference adequately. But see links to other discussion questions from that one and posts from SE community moderators. – NReilingh Nov 7 '14 at 14:10
  • 2
    Could have been handled better, but I don't know if it's fair to say a number of high rep users got together and decided it. It was the SE team that decided it. Of the ones that saw the question, no one had major objections. But not everyone saw the post, so that's a problem. – Meaningful Username Nov 7 '14 at 14:49
  • I've cleaned up the comments here a bit now that a couple things have been cleared up or established as not cleared up :P. Do note that votes on that answer are anonymous, as they are on all answers, and you are a high-rep user -- currently #29 out of more than 8300. – user28 Nov 8 '14 at 5:24
  • 2
    Rep also has nothing to do with being active. Not all the high rep users are very active and there are a lot of low rep users that are active. Anyone over 15 rep can vote up and anyone over 125 rep can vote down. High rep users don't have any more pull the low rep users voting wise. – Dom Nov 8 '14 at 16:04
  • 3
    What does it matter which way Practice and Theory are Placed in the title... this is a bit excessive don't you think then name is fine – ThunderToes Nov 12 '14 at 16:56

I want to clear two things up.

1. The site's name has already been changed. It will not be changing again.

2. This was instituted by me and the rest of the Stack Exchange community team.

Lets make sure to clear away any notion that a group of high rep users pushed their idea through. Didn't happen. Now, to try and address the reality of what did happen...

The SE team thought the top proposal was a good idea, suggested a small modification, and I posted this alternate proposal on the Site Rename Poll and solicited counter arguments. No one had any. We proceeded with the change. We did our best to ensure that any user who wanted to weigh in could do so because as you noted, strong healthy communities are built by many.

The flip side of this is, if you as a member care about a group decision, some of the onus is on you to seek out the information needed to take part. You buy your way into the process with your attention as a form of currency.

If you feel the progression of the name change proposal could have been communicated better, I'm listening. If the issue was that the SE software we're using right now made it too hard to access information, and you have an idea to make it better, please head over to Meta Stack Exchange.

But lets deal with what really took place, not an assumption of how events transpired.

  • 1
    If this is the place for constructive criticism, the I agree with the OP that first mention of 'Practice and Theory' should have had it's own question, rather than being lost on a question with already has >10 answers. I also agree I prefer 'Theory and Practice' - but then I made that clear by downvoting the answer - and the other X upvotes showed people disagreed with me. That part of the process worked as it should, IMO, but I agree the initial post itself should have been made more obvious - a big decision was somewhat hidden away. – Chris Nov 8 '14 at 1:06
  • 3
    The only people who would be keeping track of a question that's already been answered, and on meta, are the users who regularly check the site at a detailed level. Those users are the high rep users, not the whole community. I shouldn't have to constantly watch old questions to prove I'm attentive enough. I've spent enough time answering questions and trying to help the community to do that already. – Alexander Troup Nov 8 '14 at 8:58
  • That said, point 1 nullifies any discussion that can be had, because we're discussing something that now can't be changed. – Alexander Troup Nov 8 '14 at 9:00
  • I feel like this change was slipped under the radar, and a small section of users got the opportunity to respond. You should have made it it's own meta post because you were going against the most popular name choice. That's the last I'll say about it because all I'm getting now is flak for an opposing opinion. – Alexander Troup Nov 8 '14 at 9:13
  • 2
    "You should have made it it's own meta post..." And that, right there, is the one tangible and useful takeaway in everything stirred up here. Despite the fact that there had been several questions related to the name change already, I should have created one more for the sake of visibility. Lesson learned -- thank you. It will be remembered. – Ana Nov 10 '14 at 21:16

The original question had a range of answers, and the SE team took the most popular one the community voted on, and then made a minor tweak (and explained this in the post by Ana)

This is such a minor issue, I personally would rather we do not waste the CM's, SE devs or the SE design team on it at all - hopefully they are close to finishing our new site design, integrating music markup, and getting us ready for graduation!

As I said in my comment in chat, to be honest I couldn't care less what it is called. I call it Music.SE. If you wanted Theory and Practice, you still have those two words, they are just the other way round.

Remember, while this is a pretty democratic community and we can vote on what we need, at the end of the day SE make the final decision, which is why we have tags like and they can be rejected or accepted.


Did you see this discussion?

The current name was derived directly from that conversation. Ana looked at our concerns about the previous name and provided a slight tweak to the suggested name in order to better address said concerns (IMO).

We were primarily concerned with scope and potential alienation. Regardless of the order, practice and theory are our two main areas, so that establishes the scope. The particular ordering that we have now was to avoid further image/alienation problems — virtually all of our users are practitioners from what I've seen, and we want to appeal to that first and foremost rather than placing the emphasis on the academic. That's my take, anyways.


I agree that the final name should have been publicised more obviously - if the community were being asked for feedback. But that mistake's been made - one to learn from for next time. Other than that - I think the rest of the process was successful.

My suggestion for the situation we are in now: hold a retrospective poll between the two names - including the SE teams justification for their change. I'd fully expect this to go in favour of the current name, as it's reasonably popular, the SE team's reasoning was logical, and historically, meta's don't like change!

The outcome of this - all parties feel like they've had a chance to air their views, there's been options have been properly 'voted on', and in the off-chance that the new name is vastly unpopular, that's probably quite an interesting thing for the SE team to know, regardless of "It will not be changing again".

  • If you look at the timelines Chris, the community voted on a range of names. The winning one (by votes) was chosen and agreed. The CM's have gone with that one, but changed the order of the two words. The new title was not a 'losing' entry. Ana's post was made after the community voted. – Doktor Mayhem Nov 15 '14 at 21:44
  • @DrMayhem - Do I need to clarify something in my post? I don't see where I've ever suggested the new title was 'losing' - or shown confusion about the order of posts. Ana posted after the vote, asking for feedback on the CM's name suggestion. The issue was, that as that post was 'burried' as an answer on an old thread, various community members (see OP) never saw this post, and feel they didn't get a chance to provide their feedback. Apologies if my original post is unclear. – Chris Nov 15 '14 at 22:12
  • Ahh - sorry, now I understand. It was just the visibility of that final post that was the problem, right? – Doktor Mayhem Nov 15 '14 at 22:52
  • 1
    @DrMayhem - Yes, in my opinion. It's not even a particularly personal grievance, I saw Ana's original post, and was able to vote on it, but I do feel like a community member raising a valid point has been shot down somewhat in this question. – Chris Nov 15 '14 at 22:58
  • The OP appears to suggest that some high rep members made the decision and ignored the highest voted option, which is entirely wrong. – Doktor Mayhem Nov 15 '14 at 23:35
  • @DrMayhem: true. The OP should never have mentioned rep in trying to get his point across - I think what he perhaps meant instead was 'high activity' (based on his further comments on Ana's answer.) That, you've mentioned, is of course untrue - perhaps it's the way I've read the question that I hadn't especially picked up on that before. – Chris Nov 15 '14 at 23:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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