6

i've noticed that the landing page text has a very broad description of the type of questions we can answer (are interested in).

"Sound Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for sound engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required."

Can we change that to something like: "Sound Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for sound designers, engineers, editors, and sound design enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required."

Cheers,

Arnoud

||||||
  • bump! please respond! – Arnoud Traa Jul 2 '14 at 15:59
3

Sound Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and amateur sound designers, engineers, producers and editors.

||||||
  • 1
    With regards to EMV's response: could we replace enthusiast with amateur? – Arnoud Traa May 5 '14 at 17:24
  • Sure, I like that word better too. – AJ Henderson May 5 '14 at 17:27
  • I just had a duscussion with a user about what sound design is and where the distinction lies between a sound related question a sound design question: i came to the conclusion that sound design is an art form and what makes a question interesting for us users is not a technical question but one that has a conceptual foundation. He adviced me to add this distinction to the About section, can we do something like that? – Arnoud Traa May 12 '14 at 13:41
  • This is the discussion: sound.stackexchange.com/questions/28427/… – Arnoud Traa May 12 '14 at 13:43
  • @ArnoudTraa - while I agree that question was more along the lines of SuperUser, I think there are advanced technical questions that aren't so conceptual which do fit. For example, I think a question about an issue with a digital audio snake or with a sound board would potentially be on topic as they fit very firmly in the production related side of things. Organizing windows audio drivers isn't though. – AJ Henderson May 12 '14 at 13:52
  • AJ, Sorry but i really disagree on this account. We have literally been flooded with questions of a very shallow technical nature. Whether it's skype/synthesizer/mainmixers or whatever has been asked here in the last week is not what sound design is about. Design processes use tools, ok too that extend we agree, but this place is not meant for asking questions about technicalities that are a. easily solved by finding the right place (ie. a forum by the manufacturer) b. not asking more than a simple solution to something that has no influence on the aesthetics or meaning of the end result. – Arnoud Traa May 12 '14 at 14:18
  • @ArnoudTraa - don't get me wrong, I agree that those shallow technical nature questions are off topic. The synth ones are music, not sound design, the skype is software, not audio. The main mixer ones, if actually being used in a proper audio context I think are on topic, but several of them have been pretty borderline since they have really be trying to misuse sound boards (such as the chatting with a neighboring computer user's headset, which, while I did answer, I also feel was off topic.) – AJ Henderson May 12 '14 at 14:21
  • great, can somebody than please change the text to the landing page and about section... or am i the only one left working on this place... (besides you of course :) – Arnoud Traa May 12 '14 at 14:23
  • Any of the diamond mods should be able to adjust it, but I'm not sure if two up-votes is sufficient community consensus. I'll ping some people about it though. – AJ Henderson May 12 '14 at 14:27
  • the 'community' seems to consist of 'one question shoppers'that move on. All the others do not respond to anything illustrating the deadness of this place.. :( – Arnoud Traa May 12 '14 at 14:47
  • If it makes you feel any better, 49 people with rep over 200 have been to the site in the last week. People are still around, they just aren't bothering to participate if there aren't decent questions about, which there haven't been due to the overwhelming flood of 1 hit newbs. – AJ Henderson May 12 '14 at 14:51
  • data.stackexchange.com/sound/revision/173136/250633/… is the query for it if you are interested in running it yourself. – AJ Henderson May 12 '14 at 14:53
3

Not to be a shithead dilettante, but in my humble (and probably incorrect) opinion, we might see less 'noise' posts if the landing page was actually just a clear page explaining what this is and isn't (in a not unwelcoming/unpleasant way, mind you) ... perhaps people are coming here, seeing a million threads about what audio interface can I buy for Ableton under $90 and thinking 'oh, what the heck, anything goes'?

||||||
  • 2
    Hi pointy, thanks for your input! You're not incorrect at all, it's probably just more straightforward way of putting things. But I think a good text would definitely help. Unfortunately things have been pretty quiet out here.. So that's no help for getting things changed quickly. – Arnoud Traa May 19 '14 at 17:22
  • No, you are pretty much correct. We need to narrow the scope or people just figure anything goes. New users don't understand what [on-hold] means I don't think. – AJ Henderson May 20 '14 at 14:12
  • @AJHenderson At this point, I'm wondering if we shouldn't go through zero scored posts older than say .. a year, and think about a cleanup. Might be some broken windows there that I didn't mean to move over, but inadvertently did. – Tim Post Jun 23 '14 at 15:36
2

Serverfault has been dealing with the professional/non-professional distinction for quite some time.

Their landing page says,

"Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about professional server, networking, or related infrastructure administration."

And literally RIGHT IN the description is a link to this meta post that discusses what 'professional' means on that site.

Not saying that the meta post will fit exactly here, but a quick read through gives a lot of good ideas I think.

Perhaps we could start in that direction?

||||||
  • Interesting! I like this part"Shows that they've done some research before coming here, usually by including the results of their failed searches. Uses professional language instead of casual, vulgar or shorthand. Knows enough about their problem to include the right details instead of all of the details. Shows sufficient skill in the technology under question to be able to work on it for pay. Demonstrates knowledge of better-practices through how their environment is put together." – Arnoud Traa May 5 '14 at 21:43
  • Would like to add that amateurs should be welcome, if (and if only) they pursue being a professional. Eager to hear what others are thinking... If there's anyone left that is ;) – Arnoud Traa May 5 '14 at 21:47
  • I agree amateurs should be welcome. The community role comes into play in separating the amateurs' questions from the, "please do it for me" variety. As discussed over at SF, there is no easy way to draw that line, rather just developing community standards. – JoshP May 6 '14 at 12:14
  • This is a bit of a dangerous direction (has been for them) - it gets down to sort of checking credentials at the door. On the other hand, we have a very limited number of users that can actually close posts. I like AJ's wording in that someone is likely to think "that really doesn't describe me and my question" and therefore isn't appreciably put off when it's closed, but then there's the other problem of people not reading. I'm giving a think on trying to get the best of both worlds (your idea and his) into something that isn't like 'papers, please...' at the door. – Tim Post May 6 '14 at 13:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .