Suddenly, by the way, it seems that a journal is not a bad idea after all. Maybe people will be reluctant to publish new and original papers in it (since it wouldn't have much of a reputation for starters) but it could be used for announcing results which were derived from the site (or even publish if someone likes to do that); as well it can be used to publish expository notes which explain open problems, proofs or so on.
I'm sure that at least for the grad crowd this could be quite fun and useful.
]]>The current sticky post is easy to edit, marginally visible, and lacks organization. Meta users are sure to see the post, but this is arguably not the right place for a showcase like this and, though it will survive, it will be even more marginal once we switch to MO 2.0 and have an SE style meta. The organization is strictly chronological and there is no possibility for sorting. The fact that anyone can add their stories is a bonus. To summarize: editing is great, visibility is marginal, organization is marginal.
The blog page option suggested by Asaf and Kaveh is nice. Although not editable by everyone, the blog editors can be anyone we choose (not necessarily a moderator or a high rep user). Comments are disabled on the TCS conferences page but that would be a good way for general users to suggest new entries. Having designated page editors is a nice way to keep things organized. Since this is a blog page (not a regular blog post) the visibility very good once you are on the blog. However, the blog itself is not very visible. The only link from the main site is in a list at the bottom of the page and it is not even emphasized in that list. To summarize: editing is good (with comments enabled), visibility is marginal, organization is great.
Using a (main or meta) question can work well as illustrated by this example that Kaveh pointed out but not always as illustrated by this example pointed out by JDH. Editing and organization are both good, just like any other big-list question, they are both community driven rather than managed by some designated editors. Visibility is the main issue with this. Such a question shouldn't be too active, so it wouldn't pop up too often in the active page listing. Enough votes could make it fairly visible in the votes view but that is not completely reliable. Such a question is likely to rank higher in votes on meta than on main but meta is much less visible than main. To summarize: editing is great, visibility is questionable, organization is good.
A faq section or a faq-like page, as suggested by Asaf, also has issues. The faq and related pages are not designed for frequent editing. Only moderators can modify them and there is a lot of red tape involved. Visibility is excellent. (Though we all know that the faq is only visible every other blue moon and on the second Thursday of each week.) Moderators would have to take care of organization, which is probably not that difficult a task, though it would be better not to add too many more tasks for the moderators. To summarize: editing is bad, visibility is great, organization is questionable.
Note that, in any case, we would add a link from the faq to increase visibility. We already use some of the space designed for ads on MO 1.0 to link to our tips page and other pieces of info. I don't know how we will use the ad space on MO 2.0, but that would be a good use of that space. (To answer Asaf's concerns about ad space, I think ad blockers typically block content originating from third parties.)
To summarize differently:
For editing purposes, the options that allow users to directly submit their own stories (sticky post, main/meta question) are the best. Options with attached comment threads (blog page) are good. Associated (main or meta) questions for submitting stories are also good, with some pros & cons.
For visibility, anything with a preeminent link on the front page (faq-like) is best. Side links using ad space (or a featured post box as explained by Kaveh) are also very good, but these should permanent. (A link from the faq is a must.)
For organization, I think having designated editors (blog page) is the best option though community driven sorting (main/meta question) also works pretty well. It is best if editing powers are not directly tied to moderation powers (faq-like) or directly associated to reputation (meta/main question).
I don't think the best options for all three are compatible, but I would love to be proven wrong!
]]>There are a few tags on meta that might be helpful for this purpose: "faq" and "featured".
These are special tags and can be added only by moderators. I think the "featured" tag is close to what you have in mind, e.g. featured questions show up in a box on the main site named "Community Bulletin". The box is small and I don't think it can hold more than 3 items at a time, but I don't think there will be many permanently featured questions. On cstheory we mainly use the "featured" tag by adding it to questions when we want to bring an important issue to the attention of users on the main site who don't visit meta regularly, so most of the time we don't have any featured questions. I think using this tag can be one way of keeping a meta-post like "MO success stories" in the sight.
]]>You can also create pages on your blog like this: TCS conferences page.
Note: the blog editors do not need to be moderators, the blog uses WordPress allowing different types of users with different privileges.
Meta post can be used to keep track of things like original proofs generated on cstheory
There is also a dedicated chat room for each site for more causal discussions (though we haven't used it much on cstheory).
]]>Mathematical research inspired in fundamental part by mathoverflow
I think having a question like this on the main site for the purpose of promoting substantial MO success stories could really work well, and I would like to encourage everyone to make better use of it. I fear that the meta sticky has very low visibility, and furthermore does not organize the information as well as a question would.
]]>@Asaf: Those are good options, but is any one really best? One of the important reasons to move to MO 2.0 is that we don't have to stay within the confines of a fixed product anymore... Let's be creative! What would be the best way to publicize our success stories?
]]>I'm not sure whether or not you have been following this thread, but the past three-four posts are only about the success stories post. You may want to start by asking this question the posters of those messages as well. I merely respond to them.
]]>It's probably best to start from scratch on that one since it's its own concept. What properties should this space have? How should they work?
It should be highly visible. On the main site? On the meta site? Elsewhere?
It should be editable. By anyone? Only moderators? Only high rep users? How should people submit new stories? Should there be guidelines or is every kind of story acceptable?
Since some other SE sites may benefit from such a feature, it's fine to be creative here. (Though we should focus on a solution that works for us, not a solution for the entire universe.)
]]>This meta will not suddenly vanish when we roll out MO2.0. We will keep it as a reference and we could keep using it for a some other things. What to use it for and how to link it to the main site are very good questions. Do you want to start a new thread where you and others can pitch ideas?
I proposed that the current meta.MO be renamed discussion.MO and that it be linked at the top of the page as Discussion, right next to the meta, FAQ, chat, and "How To Ask" links.
]]>