Giving an explanation is fine but even as a SO user, I don't "get" it. It's just splitting a strong StackOverflow down into weaker parts. Why not a separate Ruby SE? One for dynamic languages? One for questions that involve networking? That's what <i>tags</i> are for.<p><i>Stated another way, the best Stack Overflow questions tend to have actual source code in the questions or answers.</i><p>That may be generally true, but isn't my experience. Those SO posts that get voted up the most on sites like HN and Reddit have tended to not be source based. These sorts of posts, say:<p><a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/487258/plain-english-explanation-of-big-o/" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/487258/plain-english-expl...</a>
<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/448673/how-do-emulators-work-and-how-are-they-written" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/448673/how-do-emulators-w...</a>
Great new interface. Poor name for this new site, though, with a bit of work, I'm sure people will start to remember that:<p><pre><code> o Stack Overflow = Source Code Examples
o Programmers = Essay questions about Software Development.
</code></pre>
I'm still bummed that "Networking" was considered to overlap with "Server Fault", and was therefore rejected as a group. I find it ironic that Webmasters, Wordpress, Unix, Ubuntu (all of which, actually _involve_ servers) are considered as not overlapping too much with Server Fault, but networking, a topic that is a discipline that, for many, will never involve working on a server, is considered to be a Dupe.
I really wish they would fix the reputation system so that it's not annoying or downright impossible to constructively use the site until you have a certain number of points.<p>Barring that I'd settle for having my reputation carry over to related Stack Exchange sites. Until then I probably won't bother to use this one.