Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 28 of 28
I agree with Ryan; this is edging towards unnecessarily complicated. In the past I have adopted an MO-unsuitable question on MO for discussion on my blog and others could do the same if they wished.
For what it's worth, I think this is possible and "should" happen exactly to the extent that it happens on meta naturally. If there were some third forum dedicated to things that don't belong on MO or meta, in what sense would it be "linked to" MO? It seems like the connection would be as tenuous (or as strong) as if such a site existed completely independently. People on MO and meta already link to blogs and other sites when appropriate. I don't understand what functional difference the proposed forum would have.
Note: if we notice that there is a strong connection between MO and another site, we can help it along. For example, when somebody links to an arXiv paper, we submit a trackback so that the arXiv links back. What makes this work well is that we're just facilitating a connection between independent sites that are good at what they do, rather than trying (somehow) to force a MOrXiv into existence.
Believe me, you're not the first to come up with such an idea. I rate the possibility of such a thing coming to existence with an "official" link to MO as quite low. I can definitely say there's little appetite amongst the moderators, and I have yet to see the wave of popular support amongst users necessary to create such a site. I personally see little upside and many pitfalls in trying to create such an extension of MO's "brand." Of course, anyone is free to create such a site without MO branding. I don't think it would be all that difficult to get MO users suggesting that discussiony questions go there; certainly that started happening really quickly for math.SE. I would recommend that interested parties email you about trying to set up the website, but...well, anonymity has its pitfalls.
By the way, you might consider just using reddit or some similar site. No point in reinventing the wheel.
This idea has been aired many times here on meta. I'm not going to search back and try to find all the discussions, though. Each time it surfaces both Scott M and I offer to set up such a place but say that we wouldn't want to moderate it. At that point, the discussion tends to stop!
Here's some points to ponder.
A Planet Math would not be utterly pointless.
I actually quite like the idea of a MathOverflow aggregation blog. Set something up to collates blog posts tagged "mathoverflow", throw a nice theme on it, disable comments, and then wash your hands of it. Anytime anyone wants to "adopt" a question that's a bit too discussion-y for MathOverflow, they just create a post on their own blog, tag it as mathoverflow, and post a link on the closed question. The central blog serves only one purpose --- to direct the attention of whichever people want more discussion-y\ content in and around MathOverflow to all the individual blogs that they wouldn't otherwise follow.
Sorry for my late reply (research had happen at some point...).
@Ryan: I understand. I'll keep it short and final this time ;)
@an_mo_user, @Noah, @Scott Morrison: I'm one of the people behind http://www.mathblogging.org. I'm pretty sure
my co-conspirators are happy to invest some time to create the kind of aggregation that @an_mo_user and @Scott Morrison described.
Tag aggregation is on our to-do list for the main site anyway and it wouldn't be difficult to implement a "planet debian" like subsite after that. We're absolutely open for help but all our code (including our database) is openly available so feel free to build on our buggy stuff ;).
@an_mo_user and anybody else interested: just contact me directly (my name's easy to google... email, twitter, website).
On a final note, I would love to try to convince the moderators & power users to start a group blog (something MO specific, I'm aware some are involved in The Secret Blogging Seminar), but perhaps that is for another time. I'll definitely bug Francois when I'm back in Ann Arbor next week :)
@fedja: on WordPress (and, I'm sure, other sites) you have the option of total control over comment moderation, so you have complete discretion regarding who is allowed to comment or not. I had to start doing this after a troll invaded my blog...
Just on those last points, forums are far more configurable than blogs on that. One can have a variety of levels of membership, and it's much easier to promote or demote people. This forum here is not very ... er ... sophisticated and doesn't show all that is possible.
I should say that I would also welcome a place to discuss such things. What I would want was to be sure that the people that I was discussing with were also professional mathematicians (or on the path to be such) since those are the ones whose experience I could benefit from. For example, I would really like to discuss teaching ideas with other mathematicians.
That's why I'd be happy to set up such a place; it's just that I don't think that I have the time to devote to moderating it, since I'm already technical support for the nLab, nForum, Azimuth Project Wiki, and Azimuth Forum. But since I already run two forums (actually three and a half, but let's not quibble), adding another wouldn't add any time.
Just a small and final (on this thread) comment from my side of things.
The crew working on http://www.mathblogging.org has started to build the basics for "Planet MO" or "MathOverflowOverflow" as @Scott Morrison called it (I really like that). We hope to have something running next week. I'd love to discuss it at that point in a new thread.
When you pass 100 reputation at math.stackexchange.com, you gain the privilege to "create chat rooms"...