2

I notice there was talk of a 'Third Place'. I missed the beta for this, but it seems like it could be suitable for the recipe swapping that everyone desperately craves. Would that be other peoples view too? Or will it still be considered OT even there?

  • Just wanted to leave this note for future readers: Please follow the link in order to understand what's being referred to here. What the team is calling the "third place" is actually a real-time "chat" system, not an extension site like this meta. – Aaronut Jul 23 '10 at 21:17
  • @Aaronaught, as the beta is now closed its not easy to see exactly how the chat.xxx bit works. Part of me wanted to know if it is suitable. Its starting to feel like it won't be... – Sam Holder Jul 23 '10 at 22:06
  • By no means was I criticizing your suggestion, I just felt that some people who responded didn't entirely understand it. The name "chat" alone should impart a reasonably clear idea of what it is; and while it might be suitable for this, I just didn't want people to think that it would be the same as (or even similar to) creating a meta-ish satellite site. – Aaronut Jul 23 '10 at 22:32
2

Personally, I don't think it's a very good medium for that sort of thing. Then again, I've never been a fan of the whole "chat" concept to begin with. It has its uses, but they are limited. For recipe exchange, I just don't see it working very well - too difficult to index, search, vote, etc.

If we're going to support recipe swaps in an isolated environment, I'd prefer for it to be an actual sub-site, like this meta. That provides:

  • Searching, indexing, and tagging of "dishes"
  • Voting
  • Badges (which don't carry over to the parent site)
  • Reputation derived from the parent site
  • A simple, streamlined migration process for recipe-swap questions asked on the parent.

Maybe we should support recipe-swapping in an isolated environment, and maybe we shouldn't. I don't know. But either way, if we're going to do it, I think it should go as described above.

  • I think this is the idea of the 'third place' -- a second meta. – Peter V Jul 23 '10 at 19:35
  • @Peter: The "third place" is a chat, not a meta (or meta-like sub-site). It's all explained if you follow the link at the top of the question. – Aaronut Jul 23 '10 at 21:14
  • having seen the format of this now I can confirm that this WILL NOT be suitable for recipe swapping. – Sam Holder Jul 29 '10 at 14:24
0

I think this is a wonderful idea.

How many of the off-topic questions come back to some variation of a recipe swap? I'd say it's probably a majority. Moving them to an appropriate place would be a much more positive experience (especially for new users) than stomping them closed.

Also, this could be useful for many many cooks but the stack exchange is not that place for recipe swaps. I think a 3rd place for recipes would fill a much needed void.

All of the other sub-sites have emerged appropriately from Stack Overflow's and Server Fault's needs. I think this would be a natural answering of this site's need.

0

My wife's first question when I told her about this site: "No Recipes? What?" I think a meta-style recipe site makes a lot of sense from a 'what do people expect' side.

I also agree with all thinking that expects the community and people to be very different on a recipe site. I personally have almost no interest in using this site for recipes, I would much prefer to learn truc and skills from other chefs.

You must log in to answer this question.

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