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 »
Meta

Post History

40%
+0 −1
Meta Should we have a sub-forum for less structured, forum-style discussions?

Back and forth discussion is not suited to the Q&A format that this web site is set up for. As far as I know, the Codidact software is not capable of a category that supports threaded discussi...

posted 12h ago by Olin Lathrop‭  ·  edited 12h ago by Olin Lathrop‭

Answer
#2: Post edited by user avatar Olin Lathrop‭ · 2025-05-04T12:28:13Z (about 12 hours ago)
  • Back and forth discussion is not suited to the Q&A format that this web site is set up for. As far as I know, the Codidact software is not capable of a category that supports threaded discussions anyway. Discussions also tend to have low signal to noise ratio. The high density of quality content is why many users are here.
  • Another problem with your specific example is that things like lists of learning materials don't age well. We don't allow shopping questions here for the same reason, since component purchase recommendations age quickly too.
  • We don't want to get into popularity contests about subjective issues, like which book is better than which other book, where there is no reasonably measurable right or wrong answer.
  • We do have the Papers category, which is for one-way presentation of information. However, that is also limited to real facts, results of experiments, and the like. Post are also intended to be somewhat scholarly, but no a rigorous as a peer-reviewed paper. Our voting and comment systems essentially substitute for peer-reviews.
  • There is also Codidact chat. I know little about it, since I'm not interested in low-content kaffeeklatches. Others may be able to chime in here with more information about chat.
  • Back and forth discussion is not suited to the Q&A format that this web site is set up for. As far as I know, the Codidact software is not capable of a category that supports threaded discussions anyway. Discussions also tend to have low signal to noise ratio. The high density of quality content is why many users are here.
  • Another problem with your specific example is that things like lists of learning materials don't age well. We don't allow shopping questions here for the same reason, since component purchase recommendations age quickly too.
  • We don't want to get into popularity contests about subjective issues, like which book is better than which other book, where there is no reasonably measurable right or wrong answer.
  • We do have the Papers category, which is for one-way presentation of information. However, that is also limited to real facts, results of experiments, and the like. Post are also intended to be somewhat scholarly, but not a rigorous as a peer-reviewed paper. Our voting and comment systems essentially substitute for peer-reviews.
  • There is also Codidact chat. I know little about it, since I'm not interested in low-content kaffeeklatches. Others may be able to chime in here with more information about chat.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Olin Lathrop‭ · 2025-05-04T12:26:38Z (about 12 hours ago)
Back and forth discussion is not suited to the Q&A format that this web site is set up for.  As far as I know, the Codidact software is not capable of a category that supports threaded discussions anyway.  Discussions also tend to have low signal to noise ratio.  The high density of quality content is why many users are here.

Another problem with your specific example is that things like lists of learning materials don't age well.  We don't allow shopping questions here for the same reason, since component purchase recommendations age quickly too.

We don't want to get into popularity contests about subjective issues, like which book is better than which other book, where there is no reasonably measurable right or wrong answer.

We do have the Papers category, which is for one-way presentation of information.  However, that is also limited to real facts, results of experiments, and the like.  Post are also intended to be somewhat scholarly, but no a rigorous as a peer-reviewed paper.  Our voting and comment systems essentially substitute for peer-reviews.

There is also Codidact chat.  I know little about it, since I'm not interested in low-content kaffeeklatches.  Others may be able to chime in here with more information about chat.