Let's get critical: Jan 2014 Site Self-Evaluation

Question

We all love Pets Stack Exchange, but there is a whole world of people out there who need answers to their questions and don't even know that this site exists. When they arrive from Google, what will their first impression be? Let's try to look at this site through the eyes of someone who's never seen it before, and see how we stack up against the rest of the 'Net.

The Site Self-Evaluation review queue is open and populated with 10 questions that were asked and answered in the last quarter. Run a few Google searches to see how easy they are to find and compare the answers we have with the information available on other sites.

Rating the questions is only a part of the puzzle, though. Do you see a pattern of questions that should have been closed but are not? Questions or answers that could use an edit? Anything that's going really well? Post an answer below to share your thoughts and discuss these questions and the site's health with your fellow users!

Should we edit and answer questions that are listed on the site evaluation DURING site evaluation? From what I can tell, the answer is yes: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214761/… — JoshDM, Commented Jan 22, 2014 at 17:53

Joanne C · Accepted Answer · 2014-01-22 00:56:33Z

7

The biggest thing I've noted is that we seem to have a large number of single answer questions. That may be a function of the nature of the questions (i.e. there really is only one answer), but I'm not entirely convinced. It's almost as if people avoid providing an additional answer that adds to the first and leave them as comments instead.

answered Jan 22, 2014 at 0:56

Joanne CMod

20.4k16 silver badges32 bronze badges

I agree with this. One of two statistics we can directly alter is to systemically add additional answers to any question which has 2 or fewer answers. Is it necessary to do so? Maybe for a programming site, but possibly not for this one.
– JoshDM
Commented Jan 22, 2014 at 18:52
1

The other statistic we can directly adjust is through gaming reputations by up-voting anyone with a reputation of 160 - 199. Should we? No, it's not sporting unless they deserve the rep.
– JoshDM
Commented Jan 22, 2014 at 18:53
2

@JoshDM You're right: don't game the statistic. It won't really work, anyway; the team looks at active users with sufficient rep, and mostly I believe that's from the standpoint of "does the community regulate itself without overly relying on mods to do the bulk of closing/reopening". However... it helps if people aren't stingy with giving votes where they are deserved.
– Beofett
Commented Jan 22, 2014 at 19:51
@JoshDM - I'm with you on that. It's not sporting and not really reasonable, if they haven't provided good info, we don't want newcomers to think they have.
– Joanne C Mod
Commented Jan 22, 2014 at 20:15