Return to Answer

It is a valid request, but I see some problems here:

• to find a name which really describes the sites scope better, and not just different or equally bad (or worse).

• once the name is changed, there is probably no easy way back for the next few years. A site name change is something I do not expect the SE team to make every two weeks. So if the change does not bring the benefits we expect from it, what then?

If we could just try out if a name like "SoftwareDesign.SE" (or "Programmer's Whiteboard", a older suggestion of Robert Harvey which would be my favorite) would increase the ratio of "good vs. bad posts", I think no one here would hesitate to do this. But such a change has a high risk of collateral damage - one has to be very sure about that it is worth the hassle.

For me, it looks your proposal for a name change is trying to solve a problem which might be better addressed differently. This post two days ago and its topmost answer reveals where the real problem is - not the site's name has to change, but the way how some people (and I don't exclude myself from this) behave in the process of closing, replying to bad questions and commenting.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a name change, but whoever will do this, please do it with care. And do not be too astonished if the number of low quality question does not drop significantly after the change.

It is a valid request, but I see some problems here:

• to find a name which really describes the sites scope better, and not just different or equally bad (or worse).

• once the name is changed, there is probably no easy way back for the next few years. A site name change is something I do not expect the SE team to make every two weeks. So if the change does not bring the benefits we expect from it, what then?

If we could just try out if a name like "SoftwareDesign.SE" (or "Programmer's Whiteboard", a older suggestion of Robert Harvey which would be my favorite) would increase the ratio of "good vs. bad posts", I think no one here would hesitate to do this. But such a change has a high risk of collateral damage - one has to be very sure about that it is worth the hassle.

For me, it looks your proposal for a name change is trying to solve a problem which might be better addressed differently. This post two days ago and its topmost answer reveals where the real problem is - not the site's name has to change, but the way how some people (and I don't exclude myself from this) behave in the process of closing, replying to bad questions and commenting.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a name change, but whoever will do this, please do it with care. And do not be too astonished if the number of low quality question does not drop significantly after the change.

It is a valid request, but I see some problems here:

• to find a name which really describes the sites scope better, and not just different or equally bad (or worse).

• once the name is changed, there is probably no easy way back for the next few years. A site name change is something I do not expect the SE team to make every two weeks. So if the change does not bring the benefits we expect from it, what then?

If we could just try out if a name like "SoftwareDesign.SE" (or "Programmer's Whiteboard", a older suggestion of Robert Harvey which would be my favorite) would increase the ratio of "good vs. bad posts", I think no one here would hesitate to do this. But such a change has a high risk of collateral damage - one has to be very sure about that it is worth the hassle.

For me, it looks your proposal for a name change is trying to solve a problem which might be better addressed differently. This post two days ago and its topmost answer reveals where the real problem is - not the site's name has to change, but the way how some people (and I don't exclude myself from this) behave in the process of closing, replying to bad questions and commenting.

Don't get me wrong, I am not per se against a name change, but whoever will do this, please do it with care. And do not be too astonished if the number of low quality question does not drop significantly after the change.

It is a valid request, but I see some problems here:

• to find a name which really describes the sites scope better, and not just different or equally bad (or worse).

• once the name is changed, there is probably no easy way back for the next few years. A site name change is something I do not expect the SE team to make every two weeks. So if the change does not bring the benefits we expect from it, what then?

If we could just try out if a name like "SoftwareDesign.SE" (or "Programmer's Whiteboard", a older suggestion of Robert Harvey which would be my favorite) would increase the ratio of "good vs. bad posts", I think no one here would hesitate to do this. But such a change has a high risk of collateral damage - one has to be very sure about that it is worth the hassle.

For me, it looks your proposal for a name change is trying to solve a problem which might be better addressed differently. This post two days ago and its topmost answer reveals where the real problem is - not the site's name has to change, but the way how some people (and I don't exclude myself from this) behave in the process of closing, replying to bad questions and commenting.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against a name change, but whoever will do this, please do it with care. And do not be too astonished if the number of low quality question does not drop significantly after the change.