- 3.1 questions per day
- 220 visits per day
On the other hand, the number of core users and questions is good.
So, the real question: How can we avoid failure in Beta?
Looking at our stats today, we are at:
And of course, everything else is excellent.
Basically, I think we can say, we have awesome content, we just need more exposure.
I know these will drop over the weekend, and I know we still have a ways to go, but we are making progress!
It would be a shame if it was. I think this is a pretty swell site and probably one of the only places many people will come in to contact with Christianity in their daily lives.
To poorly paraphrase Chesterton in reference to our low pageviews.
it's not that Christianity.SE has been tried and found wanting it's that Christianity.SE has been found difficult and left untried.
In fact, in it's inception we had really high pageviews and probably the best numbers since programmer.SE. Of course, these free-for-alls must be tempered, but and for whatever reason biblical-hermanueitisics or whatever came in and stole our our scholars (or at least our aspirations for scholarship).
My hope is that that site dies and this site can get rolling, others hope this site dies so that site can get rolling. I'm sure Satan would prefer both sites to die. But if any site is to live, we need to be doing our own SEO and ask, answer, close and delete questions to promote the kind of site we want.
It seems that the criteria for a site going live is having enough momentum to build a community.
From Joel's blog
A site that’s not really functioning is a trap for the unwary. The few users who do, accidentally, land there are lured into asking questions which will not be answered or will not be answered well. Even if are a few people around, if they don’t have enough collective expertise to give good answers, the site is a net negative for human knowledge.
Essentially, a site has to have "critical mass". But how do they measure critical mass?
There are actually several metrics they use, however there are two which are most important. From that same blog post, the two critical metrics:
People: Do we have a lot of people visiting the site? Are a lot of people signing up? How many people are answering questions? How many page views does the site generate?
Questions: Are questions getting answered? Are they answered well? Are they answered quickly? Are a lot of answers accepted, indicating that the person who asked them was satisfied? Are a lot of answers upvoted, indicating that some third party thought they were quality answers?
The entire purpose of the new standards was to help ensure that the second criteria would be met--that each question would receive good answers, that the answers would be helpful to the asker, and that the answers would get upvotes.
However, its the first criteria that we really need to work on.
These are the questions we need to consider. These are the questions that will either make or break this site (now that we have the new standards).