Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Users Search
Help Dashboard Sign In Sign Up
Q&A Papers Meta
Meta
Posts Tags Edits
Create Post

Post History

75%
+4 −0
Meta What is the added value - still unclear

Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations: First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the ...

1 answer  ·  posted 4y ago by coquelicot‭  ·  last activity 4y ago by Olin Lathrop‭

Question discussion proposal
#4: Post edited by user avatar coquelicot‭ · 2020-07-14T13:46:36Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:
  • First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions.
  • I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of questions that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read
  • [here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
  • I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.
  • EDIT: Oh I forgot an important thing. The famous [physics forum](https://www.physicsforums.com/) has an organization into levels (undergraduate, graduate etc). You may dislike that, but I can tell you that this works very well, and simplify enormously the management of the site by the moderators. Think about that (e.g. at least 2 levels: "non-professional level", "professional level"). This does not contradict the question quality requirement.
  • Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:
  • First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions.
  • I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of questions that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read
  • [here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
  • I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.
  • EDIT: Oh I forgot an important thing. The famous [physics forum](https://www.physicsforums.com/) has an organization into levels (undergraduate, graduate etc). You may dislike that, but I can tell you that this works very well, and simplifies enormously the management of the site by the moderators. Think about that (e.g. at least 2 levels: "non-professional level", "professional level"). This does not contradict the question quality requirement.
#3: Post edited by user avatar coquelicot‭ · 2020-07-14T13:46:13Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:
  • First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions.
  • I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of questions that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read
  • [here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
  • I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.
  • Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:
  • First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions.
  • I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of questions that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read
  • [here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
  • I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.
  • EDIT: Oh I forgot an important thing. The famous [physics forum](https://www.physicsforums.com/) has an organization into levels (undergraduate, graduate etc). You may dislike that, but I can tell you that this works very well, and simplify enormously the management of the site by the moderators. Think about that (e.g. at least 2 levels: "non-professional level", "professional level"). This does not contradict the question quality requirement.
#2: Post edited by user avatar coquelicot‭ · 2020-07-14T13:37:57Z (over 4 years ago)
  • Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:
  • First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions.
  • I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of question that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read
  • [here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
  • I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.
  • Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:
  • First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions.
  • I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of questions that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read
  • [here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
  • I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar coquelicot‭ · 2020-07-14T13:36:51Z (over 4 years ago) 
Hello, I come from EE.SE. I just would like to help you to build this site. And I have some observations:

First of all, it is still unclear what is the added value of this site with respect to the well known EE.SE. I see almost exactly the same pattern of question/answer/score/meta and construction (except that EE.SE is more pretty and works well). I think I've understood this site will be more rude concerning the quality of the questions. But you could do exactly the same with an "electronic overflow" site, in the same way there is "math SE" for non professional and "math overflow" for professional mathematicians. So, my opinion is that you have to find the true added value of this site. This may be, after all, a very clever organization in categories, in addition to the quality of the questions. 

I suggest also to think out of the box, what EE.SE is unable to do. Olin has already had the excellent idea of a "paper" category. In a different direction, I suggest the consideration of a new type of question that I have called "technology/component inquiry". Essentially, this only demand the creation of a tag, not a new category. I've posted my complete view on the subject at meta EE.SE. This can be read 
[here](https://electronics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7238/is-there-a-place-to-a-certain-kind-of-questions-in-ee-se).
I'm not sure I will post a lot of questions here (I'm not a professional), but I wish you good luck.