Well, this meta Q/A will be read by even fewer than the proposal post will be read by. I went through every community tag in here, yesterday, and added a link back to their proposal posts. Should help with the flow.

As you might have noticed, not even the proposal poster has reacted on his own proposal ;)

I encourage them to do that, then. You can post a comment under their proposal to ask about it. If that isn't enough to get their attention, this meta Q/A here won't help.

I also do not want to know who will be a participant in the community-to-be. I really would like to know if people here are "against" such a community

If somebody is against the community itself, their options are outlined here: https://proposals.codidact.com/posts/292423

Downvoting on incubator Q/A for the community does not mean that one thinks the community itself is a bad idea, merely that the Q/A contributed is bad.

Codidact is using the Q/A format because we seek a certain level of quality. When you propose a new community, and contribute Q/A to that, people around here will expect that it suits the Q/A format, and has at least a minimum of what they consider quality. This is why your "most influential anime" question was downvoted.

Because I can guarantee you: If this community-to-be is not endorsed here, I will not waste my time in trying to establish it here.

It clearly is, though. Several active members on Codidact have listed themselves as interested, even a staff member. One contributed question has received only upvotes; several actually.

The reason why a lot of your recent posts have garnered downvotes, is because they are deemed unhelpful, noisy, or simply doing things the wrong way. There is already a way to flag interest in a proposal; use the reactions on it. That's why when you duplicate that responsibility with a meta post here, it gets downvoted.

As it stands now (+0/-3) well, you can imagine which signal this sends.

As I said above, the downvotes on this question are a ranking of this question's usefulness, not an interest gauge for the community itself.

I for one would upvote any and all posts regarding a new community, wether I am interested in it or not. Just to send the signal: "Go ahead. I won't stop you. If you can do it, I'm glad to have you here".

That would be misuse of your voting ability, and may lead to an eventual suspension. I'm not trying to be threatening here, but please, see the purpose of votes; they measure the quality, usefulness and suitedness for the Q/A library. They are not meant as a "thanks for taking part", or a "good attempt". They are directly meant to rate the post as if the community was launched already.

Please don't correlate votes like you do now. Votes are descriptive of a post, not the author, nor the author's intent. (The lines can blur in the meta category, but still)

Andreas lost his angel wings‭ Don't worry about the Movie&Literature/Anime question thing. I deleted the proposal. I should do so with the question as well.

It is nice that you see that it is endorsed. The signs are good that is true. But there is more to it. I know the trouble from WB:SE. If those things are not addressed here, the one question we have might remain the only one.

I am interested in building the frame around it to protect that sprouting seed. And to promote visibility from the outside to attract more people.

On a sidenote: I think it is rude implying I would not know about the react function, if you can see that I have "registered" there.

I was not asking "How can I express my interest". I was asking "Who is PRO Worldbuilding here".

I hope I've explained it sufficiently already, but just to hammer it in here, asking about that on meta is inappropriate, in the sense that the meta category is not meant for this purpose. It's outside of the scope of meta. Use the reactions on the proposal post.

Since you now know about the reactions, you can give feedback about the fact that you did not understand them initially. Maybe we need an introductory document to this site. Have you looked in the help center? I honestly don't know if that help center is very descriptive at the moment; our help center quality has been lacking, and it still is lacking quite a bit in some places.

Antares‭ Do be aware that your personal vision of what you want the Worldbuilding community to look like, might not align with the goals of Codidact, and cannot be implemented in practice, here. That does not mean we are opposed to a worldbuilding community, or want to hinder the creation of one.

But there is more to it. I know the trouble from WB:SE. If those things are not addressed here, the one question we have might remain the only one.

You should elaborate on that, then. Either in a comment under the proposal, or write a well-articulated post on Meta explaining the problems with WB:SE; what they are, why they are problems, etc. Do it in the context of what we should do differently on Codidact.

Andreas lost his angel wings‭ I really thank you for your feedback. But please note: I know about the react thing. I understood them, I have found them because I wanted to found a new community, I have reacted. But for example: Melchizadek the author of the only question and even the proposal poster himself did not. Any new user who is maybe interested will not react. The react function does not reflect the "real interest" in a proposal. Therefore my idea to make a posting on Meta to get a clearer picture.

You know, UI/UX, churn rates and the psychology behind it were part of my studies. I know a great deal about it. And I thought my input could be helpful in improving things. To see how the site presents itself towards new users. It seems my input is regarded as noise and unhelpful instead. Okay, I have to deal with that.

But creating that post on Meta, doesn't provide any clarity or help enlighten the issue at all, it only creates even more confusion.

The react function does not reflect the "real interest" in a proposal.

It does so as long as intereted people are aware of the reaction feature. From my experience, mostly everyone does. Informing a new member that misses it, is simply done with a comment. I think you're blowing the issue out of proportions if it's all based on that single person's lack of reaction. That said, I don't think it's based just on that, I think it's also because you misunderstood what they really mean, along with what the voting really means.

You know, UI/UX, churn rates and the psychology behind it were part of my studies. I know a great deal about it. And I thought my input could be helpful in improving things. To see how the site presents itself towards new users. It seems my input is regarded as noise and unhelpful instead. Okay, I have to deal with that.

Well, it would be much more helpful to the rest of us if you'd instead identify the sources and causes first, before jumping straight into what you perceive to be the solution. :) One of your posts on Meta Codidact did get 3 upvotes, so it seems you found one way to provide useful feedback.

Andreas lost his angel wings‭ Yeah, well, I probably should have ;)