Return to Question

##Voting and Reputation Issues There’s a bit of an issue with voting, and by consequence reputation on the site. Code Golf made a comparison themselves and figured that a major problem was in the lack of reputation by virtue of the lack of voting. Code Review is doing a fair amount better in that department (having 3 users at over 10k) and having a decent spread (21 users can vote to close/reopen, and all 40 of the first page can edit anything), but it dwindles quickly after that. 40 looks cool but the number of avid users for the site is almost a thousand, rendering that as less than 4% of the “active userbase” (more on that later) with decent privileges.

##Community Engagement One positive point is that this site has an extremely engaged Meta. There’s healthy activity in recent days that surpasses a lot of other sites that we check up for graduation review.

##Time to Answer Jon Ericson, another Community Manager, ran some numbers on the site and discovered that the average time it takes for a question to receive its first answer is actually several hours (averaging somewhere between 8 and 10 hours). This seemed pretty high, but a quick browse of the questions is pretty enlightening - things are huge here. A lot of questions comprise of gigantic blocks of code that have little guidance as to what should be reviewed. This, however, can be remedied a bit.

##Unanswered Tying in to all of the above is one of the most pressing concerns about the site I had in my own review, which is the gigantic pool of unanswered questions. There are, at the time of this writing, 1237 questions without any upvoted answers, a whopping 1010 of which have absolutely no answers at all. That’s over 10% of the site’s questions, sitting untouched and barely considered to be alive. These questions range from the site’s birth in 2011 all the way to modern day 2013. About 25% of these questions result in users never returning after a week, from a rudimentary query.

Voting and Reputation Issues

There’s a bit of an issue with voting, and by consequence reputation on the site. Code Golf made a comparison themselves and figured that a major problem was in the lack of reputation by virtue of the lack of voting. Code Review is doing a fair amount better in that department (having 3 users at over 10k) and having a decent spread (21 users can vote to close/reopen, and all 40 of the first page can edit anything), but it dwindles quickly after that. 40 looks cool but the number of avid users for the site is almost a thousand, rendering that as less than 4% of the “active userbase” (more on that later) with decent privileges.

Community Engagement

One positive point is that this site has an extremely engaged Meta. There’s healthy activity in recent days that surpasses a lot of other sites that we check up for graduation review.

Time to Answer

Jon Ericson, another Community Manager, ran some numbers on the site and discovered that the average time it takes for a question to receive its first answer is actually several hours (averaging somewhere between 8 and 10 hours). This seemed pretty high, but a quick browse of the questions is pretty enlightening - things are huge here. A lot of questions comprise of gigantic blocks of code that have little guidance as to what should be reviewed. This, however, can be remedied a bit.

Unanswered

Tying in to all of the above is one of the most pressing concerns about the site I had in my own review, which is the gigantic pool of unanswered questions. There are, at the time of this writing, 1237 questions without any upvoted answers, a whopping 1010 of which have absolutely no answers at all. That’s over 10% of the site’s questions, sitting untouched and barely considered to be alive. These questions range from the site’s birth in 2011 all the way to modern day 2013. About 25% of these questions result in users never returning after a week, from a rudimentary query.

I’m Grace Note, a Community Manager at Stack Exchange. Normally for most sites we run a community site evaluation, as explained in this Meta Stack Overflow post under Public Beta sites. However, these reviews involve comparing our site content against searches on the internet for competing answers - which doesn’t entirely mesh with what we do on this particular site. For this reason we haven’t been running any community site evaluations on Code Review, and instead perform internal reviews on our own periodic basis. We recently completed one such review and so here’s some feedback for y’all.

I’m Grace Note, a Community Manager at Stack Exchange. Normally for most sites we run a community site evaluation, as explained in this Meta Stack Overflow post under Public Beta sites. However, these reviews involve comparing our site content against searches on the internet for competing answers - which doesn’t entirely mesh with what we do on this particular site. For this reason we haven’t been running any community site evaluations on Code Review, and instead perform internal reviews on our own periodic basis. We recently completed one such review and so here’s some feedback for y’all.

##Voting and Reputation Issues There’s a bit of an issue with voting, and by consequence reputation on the site. Code Golf made a comparison themselves and figured that a major problem was in the lack of reputation by virtue of the lack of voting. Code Review is doing a fair amount better in that department (having 3 users at over 10k) and having a decent spread (21 users can vote to close/reopen, and all 40 of the first page can edit anything), but it dwindles quickly after that. 40 looks cool but the number of avid users for the site is almost a thousand, rendering that as less than 4% of the “active userbase” (more on that later) with decent privileges.

##Voting and Reputation Issues There’s a bit of an issue with voting, and by consequence reputation on the site. Code Golf made a comparison themselves and figured that a major problem was in the lack of reputation by virtue of the lack of voting. Code Review is doing a fair amount better in that department (having 3 users at over 10k) and having a decent spread (21 users can vote to close/reopen, and all 40 of the first page can edit anything), but it dwindles quickly after that. 40 looks cool but the number of avid users for the site is almost a thousand, rendering that as less than 4% of the “active userbase” (more on that later) with decent privileges.