How about a Code Review blog library?

Question

In response to this meta question and this comment in The 2nd Monitor, I'm curious how Code Review meta would feel about the idea of a maintained list of useful, on-topic blogs maintained by active Code Review users.

The idea is that the meta question would explain what the list is, and the answers would each individually be a particle blog along with an index of useful/relevant/topical individual posts on that blog. Every answer to that post should be marked as community wiki, and every answer should also conform to the same format, which would be outlined in the question itself.

Would there be genuine interest in this? (It might make for a useful resource when you need to add an off-site resource to an answer you're posting.)

Would this be something that's okay to do on the meta? Does it fall under a realm similar to this post for frequently posted comments (in that perhaps these are frequently used review resources)?

Answer 1

I'm all for it. There's good advice on a couple of those blogs which is referenced every once in a while in an answer or a comment.

Can we abuse meta for this?

Totally. We've made list questions before^[1][2].

We've even done community-based questions which had everything to do with the actual users and next to nothing with the site itself^[3].

People are already collecting blogs^[4][5]. Let's make it easier on everyone by collecting them all in one place.

Answer 2

This plays with fire that has already singed the Stack Exchange model.

I think I can summarize this proposal as follows: "Let codereview.stackexchange.com lend its weight behind specific blogs or authors."

Pro:

• Users have a central, trusted list of resources for their language or skill level.
• Sites like https://blog.codinghorror.com, https://rhettinger.wordpress.com/, and http://pythoncodereview.com/ get the extra attention that their contributions to stackoverflow and codereview deserve.
• codereview.stackexchange.com is already used as a teaching tool, and because of this, adding a "curriculum" of sorts makes sense.

Con:

• This will obviate the more natural process of individual users creating lists of resources, which short-circuits some of the community vetting we already have.
• Blogspam
• codereview.stackexchange.com lends its weight behind specific blogs or authors.
• Moderator control and responsibility increases in areas that it should not, like opinionated stacks.
• The stakes go up for those who want to "game the system", so to speak.
• Endorsing a blog wholesale does not account for past or future gaffes or bad advice.
• Choice of which blogs deserve such endorsement is a matter of opinion (maybe keep the list on meta?)

These Stack Exchange sites have enough gaming going on in them without adding even more chances for it.

Many programming blogs have one or two really good posts, but others that stink.

What's more, some of the topics discussed in programming blogs are very controversial.

Whether intentionally or not, this means that Code Review as a whole, rather than its individual users or answers, now takes a stance.

While this sort of thing may not fundamentally change who has a stake in this community, it can easily make people feel disenfranchised. The detractors of the Stack Exchange model have enough legitimate complaint already.

Posts which list blogs are fine. Let the people decide which lists of blogs have the most value. Making "one list to rule them all" leads to questions of which blogs win and which lose, which does not make sense for the mandate of a no-nonsense Q&A site.