Should we merge with Power Users?
To increase the activity of the site (one of the main concerns related to making Codidact grow), I suggested merging Linux Systems with Power Users on Meta.
Do you agree or disagree with merging?
3 answers
I vote against the merger.
It's true that any LS question is likely to be on topic for PU, at least as I understand the scope of the latter, not being a participant in that community. However, I have no interest in any questions about Windows, Microsoft Office, Random Smartphone Model XYZ, or most of the topics currently being discussed in PU. (The few questions that do look interesting to me look like they would be on-topic here or in Software Development, also a community in which I'm happy to participate.) Even if I don't use the relevant software for a given LS question, I'm still interested in seeing those questions, as they raise my awareness of an ecosystem of which I consider myself a member.
I would rather be in a less active community that is focused on my interests than a broader one in which my interests are drowned out by other questions.
4 comment threads
This is an interesting discussion. I am late but want to give my take.
I have definitely struggled with deciding where to post. I think that struggle is part of any organized community though. f~~ made a great point about posting where you see fit and simply being corrected. This is the right thinking. There is no real penalty to being wrong and I think this highlights Codidact's friendliness, which refreshingly separates it from other hostile parts of the web.
Monica makes a great point for why the divide between communities is important in the first place. I agree with this and think that argument extended to Linux Systems vs Power Users at some point, which is why they exist separately. In reading the posts on this thread in both communities, I feel the problem is not whether to merge the two communities, but rather, how to better distinguish them.
It may be nice to have a "Not sure where to post?" article linked at the top of each community. Maybe that article should be linked on the dashboard instead? Maybe a "See more" button on each description in each community would be better (this gets my vote)? ("See more" can expand to example posts, top posts, staff-picked on-topic posts, top tags, etc. Anything that helps a user with a question in mind, find a place to write it down.)
The communities landing page does a nice job of attaching each description to its community. I think shortened descriptions should be attached in the dashboard as well.
I'm posting the same answer on both sites, because the questions are basically the same.
Personally, I am in favor of merging Linux Systems Codidact and Power Users Codidact, ideally by transferring the content from Linux Systems to Power Users.
The scope of Linux Systems is pretty close to a strict subset of that of Power Users; any question that is on topic on the former is very likely to be equally on topic on the latter, but there are questions that would be on topic on the latter that aren't necessarily on topic on the former.
By separating the two, we needlessly introduce confusion and separation; requiring of every poster to decide whether a given question should be posted on one or the other. Separating a subset of questions can make sense when there is significant traffic, but since we don't exactly have that luxury, we should start simple and, as with Software Development Codidact, perhaps later consider splitting the sites if the amount of traffic gets overwhelming for one.
There are some practical issues that would need to be worked out if the content from Linux Systems Codidact is merged into Power Users Codidact, which seems to me to be the more appropriate merge direction; for example, there would probably be some almost-but-not-quite-duplicate tags. However, Power Users currently has 143 questions, and Linux Systems 52, both in their respective Q&A categories; going through those even manually can probably be done in no more than a few hours. Even manual curation of the migrated content does not seem a big enough hassle to be an impediment to merging the sites at this point. Any existing links can be kept valid relatively easily since post IDs are global across Codidact; we won't have any case of two "post ID 42" to coalesce.
2 comment threads
3 comment threads