1
$\begingroup$

We previously decided to break out the voting into a second round following the heated commentary between crossvalidated.com and statsoverflow.com. One suggestion was to use a blind poll with the top five choices.

Well, the StackExchange team has come through and we're ready to launch this. Before I give them the green light, I wanted to ask again in the light of recent events:

Now that StatsOverflow.com is not an available domain name, would people rather re-open the former question (so people can vote in a normal fashion, and add new proposals), open a second round with the normal stackoverflow question format (downvoting, commentary, etc.), or launch the blind poll question?

Let's try to decide on this question by TODAY, August 31, 2010. I will accept the highest voted answer by this afternoon and start working on the new question.

Just as a reminder, the top 5 names were: ConfidenceRegion, CrossValidated, OptimumModel, DegreesOfFreedom and ModelConvergence. ("DegreesofFreedom" is a backordered domain, so it should be available at some point, but we should keep that in mind.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ statsoverflow.net is still avail. it'll be nice to maintain the *-overflow brand. $\endgroup$ – user603 Sep 19 '10 at 17:36
7
$\begingroup$

Blind poll question

(like this one: https://unix.stackexchange.com/polls/2/should-unix-linux-and-ubuntu-merge)

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Would this basically be checking off those site names of which we approve, or would it mean casting a single vote for one's favorite? I would strongly prefer the former - blind polls work pretty well with preferential or multiple voting, but single votes without some kind of info about others' votes is basically guaranteed to result in some people casting their votes for options that never had a chance, which probably won't make them too happy. $\endgroup$ – Matt Parker Aug 30 '10 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Matt: I had envisioned allowing people to choose their top 3 favorites (out of the top 5). Would have to work this out with StackExchange. This basically means you can only vote positively and without lots of comments... $\endgroup$ – Shane Aug 30 '10 at 18:41
  • $\begingroup$ Sounds good to me. I just wanted to avoid the situation where someone casts their vote, only to find out that their choice wasn't even close - while their most-hated name edged out an okay name by one vote (exaggerated scenario, but you get the idea). $\endgroup$ – Matt Parker Aug 30 '10 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ +1 from me..... $\endgroup$ – csgillespie Aug 31 '10 at 13:06
-1
$\begingroup$

Start new question with standard SO format

(see How to make second round of voting for the site name?)

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The original question is already very cluttered. I think we should have another round without the domains names which are not available so that people can vote again. We should not assume how people will change their votes as a new set can give different results. $\endgroup$ – svadali Aug 30 '10 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ That's a reasonable idea; maybe we should remove the names that are either (a) unavailable and/or (b) in negative votes, but add everything else into this new question? $\endgroup$ – Shane Aug 30 '10 at 16:26
-2
$\begingroup$

Re-open original question

( What should our site be called? / What should our domain name be?)

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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