I think a good approach to allow have discussions on SO and SU would be have a "discussion" checkbox, like we have the "community wiki" one. Discussions could appear separated from Questions, and would not have the "accept answer" button. That would be really good!
44113
Take , and note the description:     Proposed Q&amp;A site for professional and expert amateur chefs interested in the more subjective aspects of cooking; this would be to Cooking SE as Programmers SE is to Stack Overflow    It seems like  is MASSIVELY popular (has more views per-day than any other proposal by a factor of almost 2). There's also a .  Should we allow this trend to continue, possible resulting in things like a subjective web applications proposal? It seems like almost ANY proposal's users could benefit from having a place to ask subjective questions, seeing how much the subjective programmers proposal took off, how many good questions are asked and closed as subjective, and how many successful blogs and discussion sites there are.  But it seems like having totally different sites for this is wrong, as they would share no more official connection between them than with a gaming and skateboarding proposal. If they could be linked somehow, at the least like Stack&nbsp;Overflow and Server&nbsp;Fault are linked as part of a trilogy, they could both be more prosperous.   Another idea would be having a subjective version of every site (subjective.blah.com, like every site has a meta.blah.com). This would be a great way to link the two, and the separation would still be there as it. Heck we could even do it with the existing trilogy sites, with a 'belongs on subjective' auto-move feature like 'belongs on meta'. It's obvious that people want to ask subjective questions. The issue at hand is how (or if) we choose to enable them to do that with the Stack&nbsp;Exchange model. This is a much more long term issue that will need heavy discussion before any consensus can be reached.  EDIT: I see this question proposed something like this for polls. What I am proposing is a separate dominion for all questions that are valid except for being subjective. Hence every site could have a normal section, a subjective section, and a chat section. This may seem complicated, but IMHO it's a great way to divide up a topic. There would be a place to answer questions, discuss topics, and just talk. As far as I can see this covers every area users would be concerned with, leading to a one-stop site that would provide good organization for all areas of a topic.  Thoughts? (sorry for the big wall of text ;)
3520
I often use Stack Exchange sites from my smartphone. It works great, but I always have to switch to full version to see view counts of a question. Can you please add it? There's plenty of space on question page for it to place. I request community to suggest a location.
96055
Add an additional form of "I agree" besides starring or pinning (since pinning is restricted to a smaller subset to begin with) or something that we can use to not clog up the right hand star bar.  This is because sometimes you want to say "I agree" but you don't want to star it because ... let's face it, that's not star-worthy, and you don't want to clutter the stream with fifty thousand "like totes for sure, hella right!" because then it becomes one big back-patting party and you lose all semblance of conversation.  So I would propose a fourth "flag" for chat, that allows us to say "I {agree with|like|am of the same opinion as} this comment" and that it would only be useful in the live-chat (and maybe but not really in the transcript) and that it have no other useful semantics (no badges, no list of's [unless the list is of comments you've upthumbed]).
46639
Due to some "recent issues", I think the following is necessary:  Users need a way to contact moderators through the StackOverflow website.  This is especially important for suspensions, where there is no way to appeal or discuss the suspension from within SO itself.  Basically, there would be some kind of a box on the user's page that allows them to mention something to the moderators and some way to read the replies. (Or they could just go to the user's email.)
44132
While I applaud the excellent work of , the question has come up:     How long will be the elected moderator’s “mandate”? Is it for life, or are we going to have “moderator elections” regularly?   Of course, any community moderator who wishes to recuse him or herself can certainly do that at any time.   Should we have term limits that require community moderators be cycled out periodically, so others get a chance to moderate? Should we hold regular (say, yearly) moderator elections? Is it better to have a larger pool of community moderators, and let the normal ebb and flow of turnover get us "natural" variability in moderation?   What are your thoughts on this?
28393
I asked , but within minutes, it was off the question list even though the question list went back an hour in time.  Is this some form of moderation?  If so, it seems weird that no comment was made within the thread that the question was deleted, moved, or otherwise removed from the question list.
72961
can you tell me how can I put questions and get more answers ! what I should do to get more interaction with my posts ! waiting for hours and days maybe months to get an answer or comment is not good ... Really I want some advices , thanks in advance
42982
No, not like this:    Hear me out!  As Stack Overflow grows, it becomes increasingly ridden with extremely newbie and mediocre questions. It's just natural. The team are fighting hard to keep the crap out, but there are many very basic questions that are okay on their own. They don't deserve to be kicked out* - they are just very, very, very basic and/or localized.   Too much basicness tires users who are interested in discussing more advanced topics.  As has been discussed many times over, the voting system is not suited to identify advanced questions due to what is known as the . A group of people will vote on what they understand, which puts truly expert questions at a natural disadvantage that a democratic voting system can't overcome.  Now, there is a small number of users on Stack Overflow who I, as a user, know share my basic values (like, teaching a man to fish rather than fishing for them); I also know they are experts in their fields. It is safe to assume that what these users regard an interesting question worthy of attention, is likely to be interesting to me as well.      The idea is to introduce an opt-in "follow" mechanism that allows followed users to share what they find interesting, with very little fuss and on a purely opt-in basis.   Allow every SO user to follow any other SO user with a certain minimum rep, say 3000.   To every user who is being followed (or every user), display a new link underneath every question, "Recommend".    Introduce a new filtered view somewhere, named "Recommended". The view will show me all questions that my followed users are recommending.   Whenever I browse a list of questions, highlight those questions that have been recommended by my followed users. (I haven't put much thought into how to implement this graphically - you get the drift.)      I'm not especially fond of social networking, and I think most of it doesn't have a place on SO. But I'm starting to think this specific thing could be the right way to go in order to tell apart expert content from the 10000th dreary "how do I upload a file" question.  This is an entirely opt-in feature - unless I actively follow some users, I will never notice this.   Maybe for a bit of ego-stroking, the profile page can show how many users follow you. Or even who. Everything else would simply be kept under wraps - no publication of follower data in the data dump, no follower leagues or anything like that.      * At least not under current SO rules. Maybe those rules need to be changed - but that is a different discussion.
55747
I think it would be very useful.  I have a question that I have an open bounty on. Putting up said bounty brought my reputation below the point where I am allowed to comment on other peoples' posts. It's so frustrating not to be able to comment and give feedback on the answers given!  Especially since it would be helpful, for them, me, and the readers, to know particularly what is good and isn't good about their answer, and therefore give some better guidelines to future answerers on how they can win the bounty.
1774
Stuff like polls, recommendations based on subjective constraints, puzzles, webcomics etc. do not belong on the serious main SE sites, where professionals should be considered at work and having just a few spare minutes ("code's compiling") to answer questions, so they should not be distracted by such things. However, I'd also like to have a home for these things still using the SE engine. For the reason I mentioned before, this needs to be a separate place though. Let's call it four.[sitename-here].com.
50230
SO has helped me so much in times of need. It is crazy - sometimes I am having a huge issue with a program I'm working on at school or work, and I post it on SO and the answers come quickly and easily. Lots of time it's a typo, while others it's a deep misunderstanding of mine. I wonder how I can fit in here at Stack Overflow. How I can contribute. In fact, I feel such a “beginner”, I don't even know where to look half the time. But I see there is now a place for /Programmers/ which leads me to wonder if there can be a site for beginners - and strictly beginners. Beginners post in Stack Overflow, and only beginners can post answers. Meaning, you must ask a question in the beginners forum in order to answer one. Or something, I'm not sure, I just want a place to connect with others who are just starting out how to learn about programming, and want to get the chance to answer other beginner questions so I can learn more (you learn 40% of what you do and 90% of what you teach). What do you all think about this?
52568
I don't particularly think I can add more to what Monica's said about what went wrong, and . Things could have gone better. I don't really see people getting any happier about it.   I'd like to ask for a few things going forward.   Firstly - that a community team member should be dealing with social media criticisms, and we really should also be giving our communities the benefit of the doubt. In situations like this - something like "Hi! We've noticed you have an issue with the content you see on SO's sidebar. We'll see how we can help" would have been a better starting point than knocking a site off HNQ. Under most circumstances, I'd actually trust Adam - as a former community team member - to deal with it, but in this situation, we basically had folks from two different teams that don't actually deal with users directly in such circumstances try to help, in good faith and, well it didn't work that well. We need to have someone specifically dealing with these things.     We also need a clear idea of how the folks who deal with these things need to engage with the affected communities if action is taken.   For most part, the community team's had to do damage control when they're the folks who should have been dealing with it. I do realise in the past few years they've basically been pulled in 20 different directions and have been constantly dealing with backlog - but one of the consequences is it feels like the management of SO and SE has been drifting further and further away from the community.   We've constantly been told that we need to make SE better for new users and we need to attract them and grow. I've occasionally accused SE of being short sighted. I think this is one of those situations where I'm starting to feel there's tunnel vision - since the end result of it is folks who would traditionally supported SE feel that traditional methods seem neglected.  You have one of the best community teams I've had the pleasure of interacting with. They're engaged, passionate and some of the best folks I've interacted with on the internet. You'd be down a lot of core users if not for them. They're also smaller than they have ever been, with a smaller team than some medium sized site. (This is a difficult thing for me to talk about - since I've expressed an interest in the role before). We constantly hear promises that they'll improve processes - and that they'll tackle the backlog. And what we really really really need is people on the ground listening. "Hey guys, so someone has issues with the site. Could you guys tell us what you think? Could we do something about it?" goes so much further than anyone realises.  We've been really really patient, but we shouldn't need to tweet at folks to get your attention. We've been really patient. We really would love SE to grow, but not at the expense of its heart.
12752
Does Stack Exchange contain any edit suggestion or bug submission system, or such type of discussion forum to inform SO or its administrators about suggestions and bug reports that relate to SO itself?
8942
Simple request, really.  Can we add a detection for the     Please avoid extended discussions in   comments. Would you like to   automatically move this discussion to   chat?   prompt, so that if one of the users in the "extended discussion" has under 20 rep it doesn't appear?  I think a lot of the users this apply to will have low rep and it may take some back and forth to get good info out of them.  New suggestion: how about if a sufficiently high-rep user is clicking on the link, the low-rep user gets a field promotion sufficient to chat? Low-rep users are particularly prone to post questions to lead in this direction of needing to move to chat.
66300
Honestly, I feel handicapped not being able to edit other people's posts here on Meta (and until recently could not even retag questions).  Why does our hard-earned reputation on SO not count in Meta?  There are already a lot of questions that need editing, and there are practically no users (aside from the mods) that can do that at the moment.  The  question itself contains so many spelling and grammatical errors that it's down right irritating not being able to edit it (on SO it would have been cleaned up in two seconds).  There should definitely be some conversion rate - or at least just carry over the privileges, if not the rep itself.
43922
Given , I must say I think the idea (making that user's content visible to only them) is a good one.  However, the people in whose hands that power will be placed terrify me.  Jeff is saying that he doesn't like that bans can degenerate into meta-discussions about the fairness of banning, and in that respect I agree with him. But the meta-discussions do accomplish one thing -- they get more than one person to look at the ban and weigh in on what they think.  This isn't that I don't trust moderators (or, indeed, diamond moderators), but I don't trust any one single human being with an irrevocable and complete banhammer, where there's no potential to dispute things. (And if the user doesn't know they're banned, there's no potential for dispute)  Basically, I'd sleep a lot more soundly at night knowing that if one of these "enhanced bans" are put into place, that at least two people have looked at the "problem child", and only after more than one person has signed off on such a ban, does that go into effect. I don't care exactly what that process is, but I don't want to have to worry about pissing off a moderator and getting banned as a result.  We all get pissed off here -- it's part of any community. But "the nuclear option(s)" need(s) to be decided upon by someone with a cool head, not someone who's pissed off.
25051
While having a  tonight with  over at , he made a comment about how we have around 150-200 moderators on SE total. I thought about this for a moment, and realized that seeing ALL the moderators we have could be tricky. Going to 60+ sites and looking at their about pages is time consuming. My idea is that we could have a full list of moderators, perhaps on , where we can see every single moderator on all of the 60+ sites out there. I think it would be neat to see who is running everything around here.