In 1.1 with the new related sites, is it intentional that MSO and SO are not related?
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
I would assume the answer is Yes.
Although Meta Stack Overflow is a Meta site, it is also the "capital" for the Stack Exchange engine as a whole, and unlike all the other Meta's also has individual reputation per user. It is really a special Meta site.
4 Comments
Jonathan.
I know it was kept seperate in 1.0, but that was because the meta sites were under linked_meta, which MSO isn't to SO, but now it's called related sites, and SO doesn't have a Meta other than MSO.
BinaryMisfit
@Jonathan Kevin already answered and expanded on what I was trying to convey. MSO is not really a Meta site, apart from the name.
Jonathan.
but it is the closest thing SO has to a meta site.
BinaryMisfit
@Jonathan They have never been related, and there is no real need to ever make them related. MSO has a different set of rules from normal SE sites, the trilogy and per site meta's, and it will be more confusing to relate them.
Meta.StackOverflow is a meta in name only. It is not Stack Overflow's meta, at least not from the API's perspective.
Its a tad confusing, I know. Its a consequence of the "per-site meta" concept being introduced long after meta.SO existed.
3 Comments
Jonathan.
however from the sites' perspective they are linked, at the top bar the meta and parent links go to MSO and SO respectively
Kevin Montrose
@jonathan - but accounts aren't linked, reputation is distinct, featured/etc. tags don't cross at all, elections aren't announced, and all sorts of other little things. Meta is not a per-site meta, and it would needless complicate things to pretend it is in
/sites.Jonathan.
You have a point :)