9
$\begingroup$

I made here a short analysis on why chemistry stats look bad (3rd bullet point). I believed with bio and phy.se existing, chemistry as connecting branch and huge overlap in research would be able to reach the critical mass of user and questions for a self-sustaining growth by user on bio/phy.se joining the site. But it looks very bad compared to a other science sites I observed since its start, I don't see many bio/phy user registered at all on chem.se. I also asked on MO, what can be done to help those science sites. The main reason is probably that many commiters left the site (lasted nearly 2 years, which is of course too long). But if it gets closed, because it doesnt grow, and I start to believe sites that never reach the critical mass ever yield a substantial growth to establish a community, thats a huge downer. No chemistry on SE?! I mean, really. "Waiting for further growth" when older sites like cognitivesciences.se or linguistics.se didn't grow for months looks like desperation.

What can be done? A lot of the chemistry questions are very specialized and localized, as most of the underlying theory belongs to physics, but this makes me even more wondering why many of the probably existing chem students reading physics.se dont take notice of chem.se or ask/answer questions there?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ The fragmentation is a tricky topic... I can't claim I know the answer, but I feel that this specific division (physics/chemistry) is counter-productive. $\endgroup$ – Roman Starkov Aug 6 '12 at 18:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .