Today I discovered that you can track the progress of a site in beta via Area 51. (I also found that the original proposal came from Hamlet, which made me a bit sad but there we go).
This was news to me: I thought sites vanished from Area 51 once they'd gone into beta. Here's our stats:
Not too shabby, it seems to me, for a site a year old.
We can't do much about the number of questions we get, the number of visits we get is close to where we ought to be, and we have a great user base (thanks, everyone!). But when it comes to answers, we're falling behind and it's within our power to do something about it.
One of the problems we've got on this site is that a lot of questions need specialist knowledge it's hard to source elsewhere. While you can research questions a lot of the time, it's also common to field questions that really can't be answered without being intimately familiar with a particular book. So it's perhaps not surprising we've got a fair amount of unanswered questions, or questions with a single answer.
On the other hand, given this is a site where having a definitive "correct" answer is difficult, we probably ought to see more questions with multiple answers.
Over the next couple of weeks, I think I'm going to go back and comb through some questions to see if I can find any I missed that I might be able to contribute to, even if they've got existing/accepted answers.
But is this something that, as a community, we should be putting more effort into? Or, given our subject matter, should we not care about these particular metrics?