text:
What went wrong the last time, and how can we avoid the same mistakes?
This was the the closing announcement from the previous incarnation of Arduino:

The future of Arduino on Stack Exchange
After a week and a half in private beta, Arduino Stack Exchange has
  attracted some excellent questions, with great answers written by
  helpful, knowledgeable Arduino experts. Kudos!  What you're
  doing is great... But this isn't the right site for it, not right now.
  The volume
  of questions here is very low; more importantly, this is clearly
  becoming an Arduino-focused electronics site - and we already have an
  excellent site for electronics and
  electrical engineering professionals, students, and enthusiasts
  with a big
  focus on Arduino.  Therefore, we plan to close this
  site on April 25, 2013.  This is our
  screw-up, not yours. When we were debating whether to send this site
  into beta, I
  voiced some concern that there was a lot of overlap in the
  definition. After some debate internally, we decided to go ahead
  with the launch, thinking there would be enough interest in other
  Arduino topics to carry the site. We were wrong. However, I still
  think this site does demonstrate that there is a wealth of
  knowledge that hasn't necessarily found a place within EE.
Well... It should. There's no reason why y'all shouldn't
  be asking and answering the same good Arduino-specific questions on
  EE.SE that you've asked and answered here. Over the years, many
  different products and platforms have found homes within larger Stack
  Exchange sites by directing folks to a specific tag and just being
  active enough to guide them toward asking good, on-topic questions.
  Indeed, a fair number of Stack Exchange sites came into being after a
  thriving community developed on an existing site and then later broke
  off...  Some day, Arduino may follow this same path. Until
  then, I welcome you to help incubate the Arduino community on Stack
  Exchange by
  becoming an active member of Electrical Engineering. I've started
  a discussion on bolstering
  the Arduino community on EE.

The community needs to be on point this time around and focus on building a successful community. Moving forward out of private beta will not be a freebie for us.
What can we do differently this time to better our chances at a successful site?

We need to all post more questions.  Last time, we kinda "rushed" to get a whole bunch of people to sign up at the last minute (and pulled some funny stuff with the suggested question voting), so participation in Beta wasn't nearly what it could have been. (My $0.02)

Mods may want to migrate Arduino related questions from EE (where they were often derided, ridiculed, or discounted).

@Ron perhaps in the future Arduino questions that are closed as off-topic at EE can be migrated over here, but that's not an option for private beta. The site needs to prove itself on its own first

How many times do we have to run a beta arduino site before we get a pass? I agree wholeheartedly that all the previous questions that were migrated to EE should move back.  Take my points away from my EE profile if you want. I just want the SE experience without the intimidation of the EE area's community.  The types of questions asked on EE force the relatively beginner type of questions for the arduino answer-seeker to be overwhelmed or intimidated.  And while I'm glad there's an arduino subreddit, it's pretty lame for aggregating correct answers.

I think that more weight needs to be placed on the quality of the questions. There are already a number of questions where it isn't quite clear what is being asked. The onus needs to be on the person asking to provide enough detail and a clear enough question to get good answers. There seems to be a tendency on beta SEs to just answer poor questions anyway to gain rep, but in the long term, these questions do not contribute to the knowledge base.

@Cybergibbons Agreed. The key aspect however is that we can guide those users into asking better questions, rather than intimidating and alienating them. But that's something we have not being doing so far in our beta. We should put a stronger focus on quality of questions. Probably a good way to do it would be through coaching of the editors that we already have.

@cyber Use examples please. Quality is hard to discuss without specific cases to compare and evaluate.

Regarding posting more questions, yes that's important:  repeating my previous comment, when the Arduino Tre board comes out (linux + Arduino uController) there will be a lot more questions being asked, since the Arduino universe will expand in scope.  Perhaps a question of timing, if this beta lasts long enough so we can start seeing questions from the new board.

Our beta is still in its infacy, but I already see a very diferent set of questions and audience here, when compared to EE.SE.
I think that the vast majority of questions in our beta wouldn't be accepted in EE.SE as they are. They would have to be carefully reworded to make them fit into their scope, and even then, they would be quickly closed as off-topic, as it usually happens.
The main reason for classifying our questions as off-topic there is that most Arduino questions aren't about electronics design. Instead, being about a line of products, some Arduino questions tend to be classified as shopping questions or use of electronics devices.
Also, the minimum requirements for asking a question on EE.SE are really high. They expect that you know something about EE (ie. draw schematics) before they welcome you there. That counters the nature of Arduino users, who tend to be newbies, very inexperienced hackers (I include myself in that category). Other related reason may be differences in jargon (ie, saying sketch instead of firmware, shields instead of pluggable boards), and so on.
For those reasons, despite of having the tag with most users (arduino), EE.SE still alienates the majority of Arduino users out there. Many come in and ask one question and is quickly shown the exit door. There may be a ton of 1 rep users just like that. For that, and other reasons, EE.SE may be classified as a very marginal Arduino resource, at best. There are far better places on the Net to ask questions about Arduinos than in StackExchange, places where Arduino users are far better appreciated.
The Arduino community is large, but StackExchange still fails to tap into that resource. Having an Arduino site here at SE is, in my opinion, the proper way to get the attention of the 200k+ Arduino begginer hackers out there.
So, to answer your question, one thing we can do to make sure this instance of the Arduino.SE thrives is to keep our scope broad and accept everything about Arduinos, so that any Arduino user feel at home here.
Along the way, I think that we, as a community, can help at least some of those noobs graduate and become better Electrical Engineers and help them move on to ask and answer great questions at EE.SE as well. We can show them how to draw good schematics, design and etch their own boards, and so on. But in a much nicer and forgiving way.

I strongly agree. I think you've captured the essence of what Arduino.SE needs to be. Visitors here will often be people just tinkering for fun, so they'll be inexperienced and probably lacking confidence. Sites like EE and SO are much more geared towards professionals or very enthusiastic amateurs. In contrast, we perhaps need to be more down-to-earth, flexible, and encouraging if we want to make this site/community thrive in the long run.

This doesnt really answer the question what should we do differently given that the previous beta didn't work out.

@AsheeshR - That's a technicallity. What the OP probably wants to hear is what we can do to make our site a success this time around. Whether it's something we did wrong the other time and will do it differently now, or something we did right and will repeat now, it's irrelevant. I didn't participate on the other attempt, so how can I know what's been done?

Update the Help and 2 Minute Tour to clarify what Arduino.SE is about (and not about) compared to EE.SE.
Possible examples:

"Do ask about Sparkfun, Raspberry Pi, Lilypad, Adafruit, Beaglebone etc. projects that you're working on."
"Do ask about programming sketches with the Arduino IDE,  johnny-five, etc."
"Don't ask about soldering or [some other example which demonstrates the line between EE.SE and Arduino.SE]".

(Or, whatever's appropriate; because I'm brand new here I don't actually know what areas the community does/doesn't want to work on.) These examples should be informed by how the community feels about what's on/off topic, and will need to be updated as time goes by.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Halp! The favicon is faceless!

I have a Retina display, and the favicon is faceless, plain, and depressing everywhere I go. Can we please fix this?
Easy Repro Steps:

Open Chrome (haven't tested it on anything else)
Zoom in (command-+ on a Mac) to 200%
Go to Arduino.SE
Observe the facelessness of the icon.

'Tis fine on my end.  (Vista, FF 26)

It only does this on a Retina display.

I suppose so, no bug for me either.

Found the bug... when you zoom to 200% the code detects this and change the fav icons sprites file from this (16x16 icons) to that (32x32). (Very smart, team! :))
Now the only problem is, that while in the 16x16 sprite there is icon for
Arduino, in the 32x32 it's just blank as you see yourself.
With proper icon:

And without:

Update:
Fixed by Jin, in revision 2014.2.??.1369.

This was my fault. I've pushed the correct icons. The changes will be on live after our next prod build. (You may still have to hard refresh browser)

Cheers @Jin, thanks!

I'm getting the same issue in chat without a retina display.

The root of the problem appears to be different than what Shadow points out since it's pulling from a different location:
<img class="small-site-logo" title="Arduino" alt="Arduino" width="16" height="16" src="http://cdn.sstatic.net/arduino/img/favicon.ico?v=abcdef">

This may just be an error on your end. I would try to restart your computer and see if this fixes the problem. It may also be a zoom error. Try zooming in or out and see if it fixes the problem.

Nope, just reproed on a different machine. Try the steps above.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Using board names as tags
Given that the site's focus area is Arduino, creating tags such arduino-uno does not seem to me, as ideal. I think that just the board name without Arduino prefixed to it is sufficient, as the Arduino in the name is implicit.
So, should tags be of the form arduino-boardname or simply boardname? Eg, arduino-uno vs uno

Based on the answers given (Thanks @Butzke!), I felt it prudent to create a tag list of sorts for all the official boards. Feel free to add any missing board with the desirable tag name. If you disagree with any of the tag names, please mention so in a comment.

Uno - uno
Leonardo - leonardo
Due - due
Yún - yun
Tre - tre
Micro - arduino-micro
Robot - arduino-robot
Esplora - esplora
Mega - mega
Ethernet - arduino-ethernet
Mega 2560 - mega-2560
Mini - arduino-mini
Arduino Pro - arduino-pro

All variations of the board name will be synonimized eg. arduino-uno will map to uno. This list is for the tags that will be visible to users eg. uno, once the synonym is established.

Have all the Lilypads too.

Its missing the [tag:mini], [tag:nano], [tag:pro-mini], [tag:pro] and [tag:fio]

@Butzke Feel free to update it.

Readers should note that this is nothing more than AsheeshR's personal opinion - the fact that they accepted their own answer to their own question is not in any way a "decision" by the community of this site, and carries absolutely no weight.

I disagree removing the arduino before the name of the board.
Exist a lot of Arduinos that could make some troubles in tags, if we put just the name of the Arduino like:

Arduino Ethernet
Arduino Mini
Arduini Micro
Arduino Robot
Arduino Nano
Arduino Pro

Exist many possibilities to have a tag ethernet or robot that don't have anything to do with the Arduino Ethernet or with the Arduino Robot.
Even the Tags mini, micro and nano would be confusing just with this.
I think that putting the word arduino before the name of the board will be more organized.

Hmmm.  This is a very good point that I hadn't thought of...  +1

Since this was the highest-voted answer, I've implemented tag synonyms on this basis. Everything is now of the format like: [tag:arduino-uno] and [tag:arduino-mini] etc.

The tags should be named uno, mega, etc., so long as the board in question is an "official" board.  Using arduino-uno would be like a tag called math-arithmetic on Math.SE.
The arduino-boardname tags should be made synonyms, too, for the boardname, in any event.

I agree with Butzke that there can be confusion about whether or not the tag means the board. There are even three ethernet questions already. However, it is unlikely that uno will be mistaken for anything other than the Uno board. I propose that some boards, such as the Uno, Yún, Duemilanove, and Esplora should have not have arduino in the tag name (arduino-duemilanove can't even exist; it's five chars over the limit), but others, such as Ethernet, Micro, and Robot should.

arduino-due seems good enough, considering it's the way most people refer to it anyway.

@ScottM. There are still other names longer than 7 letters.


text:
Why is Arduino.SE different? [EE.SE redux]
I realize this has been discussed in the Area 51 proposal and in the old site before it died, but I think that it would be a good idea to set this straight on Meta for the future's sake, so we have a strong
What separates Arduino.SE from Electronics.SE?
Some topics I believe might make a difference, and I'd like to hear the community's input specifically regarding these (but about Arduino & EE in general):

Arduino has a more varied audience than EE in general.  As should be well known, Arduino is used by people ranging in career from artist to engineer.  Thus, the answers on this site will be written in a different way than on EE, where more inherent knowledge of EE is expected.
The Arduino platform is a product-line (along with some similar, yet not official, products) and not subject of study.  This is a key difference--some questions that would be categorized as "off topic" as a "shopping question" on EE may be perfectly on-topic here.  (Yet, this is just a guess--I want community input)
Arduino users may have programming issues that are very closely tied to hardware issues.  This fills a void left by EE and SO, as EE doesn't like anything too software related, yet SO doesn't want anything too hardware related.

The varied audience argument is valid (in the context if this site) only when we actually have that audience on the site. At present, the questions don't seem to show that we have artists or designers in the community. Too early to tell, so I may turn out to be wrong.

So, what about compatibles? Are only those which go through the IDE going to be of interest? Of course, that doesn't rule out those that aren't pin-compatible. I couldn't seem to wrap my head around that reading the proposal etc.

Also with various shields, arduPi etc. it's not only about arduino anymore. And to be honest I'm sick of this what is the difference bla bla. If you say no difference they close all questions as off-topic, if you say there is a diffrence then they say no we have already XXXX.SE maybe they should once make up their minds.

Is Intel Galileo on topic?

As our site thrives, there will be a lot of Arduino questions that are now barely accepted on EE.SE that will be migrated here. All of them will, I'm sure. A few stray Arduino programming questions from SO should be migrated as well. That will be great because that's where their home is.
To prepare for that, we need to make sure that our scope is not as strict as of those other sites. In particular, I think we should make our scope as broad as possible: everything related to Arduinos should be allowed in here. That includes:

Boards: official, compatible, almost compatible, attempted to be compatible, one-off boards that I designed and etched at home, incomplete or failed attempts of boards, whatever Arduino-like boards.
IDE: official, semi-official, underground, whatever.
Shopping recommendations: as the OP said well, Arduino is a line of products. Some open-source hardware, some not so much. All these should be welcome here.
What else?

Someone coming from EE.SE may think this is too radical. But we can make this site the way we want.
I don't see why we shouldn't allow questions about some obscure board or IDE in here, or shopping questions. That's what Arduinos are all about: diversity, trial and error.
I usually see arbitrary restrictions in scope as reasons for closing questions that some users don't know or don't like to answer. That goes against the freedom I think we should have here.
That doesn't mean we won't worry about the quality of questions and answers. We should be strict without being mean. We should educate, but not be harsh. But that's topic for another question.
In any case, we should also try and educate instead of censoring. If someone asks a poor quality question, editors should educate these users on how to ask better questions. The editors should try and improve the questions instead of quickly closing them. So, we should avoid closing questions as much as possible. We should try and improve the questions. And having the broadest possible scope will be really important to achieve those goals.

Please do be careful about migrating questions from the other sites - the threshold should really be not that a question can fit here, but rather that it does not fit there.

This is now becoming a very serious problem.  The incumbant curmudgeons of EESE use the existence of this site as a handy excuse to dump any question which even tangentially mentions "Arduino" - not because it is a better fit here, but simply because they inherently hate questions from beginners.  The result is that questions which belong there end up here, and as a result end up with weak, ill-informed answers with factual errors which often go unchallenged.

This comment from one of the best contributors to EE.SE sums up the attitude of some:

When are the ardweenies finally going to learn they don't belong here until they are ready to learn about the underlying electronics!?

Fair enough. It is often frustrating to answer questions from absolute beginners. I think most beginners now start with Arduino, and actually half of Arduino.SE questions could be accurately characterised as beginner EE.SE questions. So that is where Arduino.SE is different: it is forgiving of beginner questions.
Which brings me to another point of difference. If Arduino.SE is a starting point of many beginners then I don't think we should be too strict with what is and isn't on topic. For example, questions about programming a computer to interface with an Arduino over serial should be welcome.

The problem is that the EESE folks now use the existence of this site as an excuse to dump beginner questions which even tangentially mention Arudino - regardless of the fact that the questions are entirely about "understanding electronics" and not at all about Arduino.

@ChrisStratton yea I've seen that a bit there. I would love to see Arduino.SE expanded to include all kinds of systems like Launchpad, beagle bone, etc. I don't know what it would be called.. "Hobby electronics" isn't right because so many engineers now use these. For example, the undergrad students in my lab and IEEE student branch use Arduinos and other similar devices to make some pretty complicated stuff. Perhaps "macro-electronics'? What do you reckon?

We already have a site which covers all of these topics in a sound technical manner - it is called EESE.  It's merely desperately in need of a change in local management to bring it back inline with the stack exchange mission.  The system isn't designed to support duplication, so the problem isn't the lack of duplication but that one site has been allowed to veer so far off-mission.

EE.SE has a few (and I emphasize 'few') vocal curmudgeons who, while being competent to extremely competent in their specialties, can be intolerant to outright rude if someone rubs them the wrong way. I even had a moderator get his fur up when I pointed that out that there was a (small but noticeable) degree of contentiousness in the group. I'd like to see A.SE not mirror that aspect and kick questions that were kicked to us, back to them. There's no point in starting or aiding a p**sing contest and if - as I'm reading here - [continued...]

... A.SE is trying to attract members, we'll need to keep our boundaries just a little softer and welcome folks who may well become solid contributors if they can just find a home.

The problem with soft boundaries is that the mission then becomes inherently at odds with the structure of the SE system.  It's not designed to support distinct "serious" and "beginner" sites for the same topics.

I do realize this is an old question, but I finally have a solid answer to this question!
Lately, I've been studying the scope of Arduino SE very closely. The difference between Arduino SE and EE was bothering me. I managed to sum it up in one sentence:

EE is for making electronics, where Arduino is for using electronics (more specifically, Arduino).

EE has closed many questions with the reason that "it's for building electronics, not using them." For example, I've seen a question about using battery packs to power Arduino that was closed. They're trying to build a more professional user base, where here at Arduino we get diverse backgrounds.
There are exceptions both ways for this rule, but it's a general rule. Scope is a really hard thing to master, and IMHO this covers a large part of our scope in one sentence.


text:
How should board revisions be handled?
The boards undergo significant changes across revisions. Is there a need to create separate tags for the different revisions or should we just specify the revision in the question without having separate tags?
The Uno for example underwent multiple changes going from R2 to R3 such as a new microcontroller(Atmega 32 from 16) as well as switching of the FTDI board with a Atmega 16. So, it is possible that many questions relevant for R2 may be obsolete with regard to R3.

Given my understanding of the target audience here, revisions shouldn't be reflected in tags.
Only if the revision is germane to the answer/question should it be raised; No need to force people to try to understand what revision they have just to tag a question.


text:
How do I describe or draw my circuit in such a way that everybody understands what I am building?
How do I describe or draw my circuit in such a way that everybody understands what I am building? On EE.SE there is this circuit editor available to quickly draw a circuit, I'd propose to have that here too.
There are not many questions on the Arduino stack yet, but I invite everybody to add example questions that would benefit from a circuit editor in the answers below.

It should be allowed to use Circuit-Lab here too.

@RobertCartaino I deliberately asked for example questions in the comments, so they can be added to the question text. The example questions are hardly worth an answer. You seem to disagree, what is your vision on this?

Comments are used to ask for clarification or suggest improvements to a post.  Comments simply were not designed to be used the way you suggest. But posting 'answers' lets folks vote to gauge their usefulness. Answers allow wiki-style editing to add to and improve those answers where needed. Answers also have their own comments if users have questions or suggestions. Comments provide none of those capabilities. Comments are ephemeral by design; they may even become hidden if too many comments are added to the post.

Another typical example of where circuit diagrams are required. http://arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/876/project-showcase-14

http://i.imgur.com/glcclTu.jpg

YES!
We really do need Circuit-Lab on here. This is enabled on EE.SE. So as to your feature-request, could the team pretty please consider enabling Circuit-Lab on here?
I would personally use this on wiring questions, or anything that needs an electrical schematic. The Stack Exchange team looks for questions/posts that would benefit by having Circut-Lab, so let's make a list of such posts/questions.
Some questions that could use this:

Is there a way to have more than 14 Output pins on arduino?
Possibly Arduino Uno R2 and Ethernet Shield R3 compatibility
How to interface to LPG consumption meter
How to switch an external circuit with Arduino?

This is community wiki, so if you see something that would be good for this list, add it!

YES!
We really do need Circuit-Lab on here. The Arduino is more than just code. It is hardware, software, IDE and core libraries. This SE needs efficient/effective methods to communicate all of these functions of the Arduino eco's or framework.
Note SO's arduino tab has many questions with long winded descriptions of circuits, that work in conjunction with code. Where it would be best described with a schematic from Circuit-Lab. A picture is really worth a thousand words.
Often with these cases. The comments explode and drag out with simple questions about what was omitted in the written description. Causing the question to be answered in the comments and not with a clear answer, if at all. In these cases a schematic would provide better questions and result in better answers.
As the answers should also allow Circuit-Lab too.

I can't help but notice that you copied exactly the first two sentences of hichris123's answer.

It was well put. Where I believe I immediately went into additional value added content.

Another question that benefits from a decent circuit editor: How to switch an external circuit with Arduino?
This is typically what happens when none is available. Now I have to grab pen and paper and follow the description word for word while drawing what I think the author meant. Someone else may draw another circuit. And the people who answer, need to make descriptive text too so the OP can grab a piece of paper in turn to try understand what the answerer tried to capture in words.

Fritzing appears to be the official standard for Arduino circuits. (Site currently mostly down at the moment.)

Beware that the Fritzing wiring diagrams are not really useful for sharing the circuit diagram, they are useful for reproduction of the circuit. You need datasheets for all components handy to interpret how it is connected and the result will be hard to follow. I saw Fritzing also allows for circuit diagrams, but I don't know how well that integrates with the site.

I would think cross compatibility between EE.SE's C-L would be beneficial.

@jippie - You know that EE.SE has a (kind of) standard of asking posters to include proper schematics (with component descriptors and all). That's great and I think we should have the same here, but I honestly thought that Fritzing diagrams could be ok, too, just so we make the transition easier for the less experienced. Arduino sites use it for a reason. What do you all think?

@Ricardo it is not just the asking posters that may want to include a quick diagram. Anyways, I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, my point is that it would really help to have an easy way to include circuit diagrams in questions and answers.

One thing to add: Fritzing screenshot could be useful. No need to do a full schematic for a simple LED demonstration (say "Do I really need a resistor?") to add color, but then for more advanced projects request that the OP draws a schematic using Circuit-Lab or using the "schematic" tab on Fritzing and taking a screenshot there. Screenshots are the only option until the dev team implements anything: that is if they do ever.

@jippie hmmmmm. Your question had a hole, you should've said "how do I draw a circuit so eerybody understands on this site", that might've indicate this answerer that you are asking a different question.

simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
While I generally agree with Pops, I looked at some of the other sites with this setting enabled:

Amateur Radio
Raspberry Pi
EE

It seems to me that the list fits into what you might call hobbyist electronics/embedded systems sites. So I'm a little more convinced the feature will be used for good and not ill.

Another typical example of where circuit diagrams are required. Project Showcase '14
Every answer with that should probably ultimately contain a circuit diagram.

Adding my vote for a schematic editor. The best way I have at the moment (even though I have Fritzing) is a pen, paper, and camera, as in this answer.

Poor mans Electronics CAD kit :)

Man's poor CAD, for sure.

That's more of a political correct naming ;D

Try to use schem-it for online or you could try using an offline circuit simulator just like multisim and circuit wizard.@

Shown below is a simple schematic created with CircuitLab, which is a drawing and simulation package referred to in a number of answers above.  It appears that CircuitLab recently (October 2016) became available in arduino.stackexchange.
To use it, click on the circuit icon next to the image icon in the editing tools bar (at top of edit box).
When you edit a question or answer containing a CircuitLab schematic, the schematic can be edited also.  The editor's components list contains numerous passive components, some generic transistors and op amps, and a few ICs (eg NE555).  Apparently, to draw an Arduino is a fairly lengthy process starting with a Custom box (from the Annotation section).  However, if one does get drawn and saved, it can be reused.  From the FAQ: “How can I save my custom part settings for re-use on another schematic?  ... you can copy and paste an item from one browser window to another and ... all of its parameters will be copied and pasted...”
CircuitLab documentation is available at circuitlab.com.  Note, the CircuitLab editor and simulator does not work in all browsers; see CircuitLab Documentation: System Requirements for more information.  Briefly:  “CircuitLab officially supports Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox”.  While Apple Safari and Opera are not officially supported, users report success.

simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab
Note, answers to “Embedding a schematic editor” on electronics.stackexchange meta include comments similar to above; replies from CircuitLab developers; and a couple of alternatives that now are moot.  Several non-embedded schematics programs are listed in  “Suggestions for a program for drawing simple schematics”.

This is a somewhat difficult spot. For a site like Mathematics SE, it's a no-brainer that MathJax support should be enabled, because nearly all posts use and benefit from it. Similarly, we'd never consider adding a chess game replayer to Ask Ubuntu; it just doesn't make sense.
Here, the distinction isn't so clear. It's obvious how circuit diagrams are related to the topic of Arduino, but the list of posts that could benefit is pretty short as-is. And adding a package, even one that we already use on another site, isn't free; for example, see Nick Craver's (somewhat technical) explanation of testing MathJax on Stack Overflow. Granted, those are different dependencies on a different site, but the principle is the same.
The point of all this is, I haven't seen enough of a need for this tool demonstrated to justify enabling it. I realize the list is a bit old, and was probably forgotten about for a while, so I'm not formally declining the request just yet. If you're still interested in having a circuit diagrammer on Arduino, show me that it will benefit more than just a handful of posts!

I don't see how MathJax is a no brainer for Mathmathics, but a decent circuit editor isn't to Arduino. The list of posts that benefit is far from complete. I think there would've been a lot more quality answers on this stack if those tools would've been available. A lot knowledgeable people are dismissed because of the lack of basic tools required for them to share their knowledge. Anyways I left this stack ages ago, I don't mind.

Because many questions here (based on a quick, non-scientific sampling) seemed to be purely about code or other issues that don't involve circuit design/layout at all when I was writing the answer. I might be sympathetic to arguments like "more questions would have included diagrams had the tool been available, and it was too much of a pain to include them any other way" but nobody's made such an argument or shown any evidence of that.

Hardware information isn't optional for embedded systems. Without hardware information, many questions are left unanswerable. The four posts in list of posts that could benefit  show various uneven ways that more experienced users have worked around the lack of schematic capture (and all four of those questions successfully got answered). That's not a list of unanswered questions that needed hardware information to become answerable. Wish I could come up with a good SEDE query for this...

Unlike electronics.SE where about half of new questions are from experienced users, most Arduino.SE new questions are from "rep 1" users who mostly lack technical electronics background. On electronics.SE, new users are commonly prompted to "use CTRL+M to insert your schematic", but on Arduino.SE we're lucky if we eventually get a blurry cellphone photo of a breadboard, or a crummy fritzing build diagram. In some cases there's a reference to a specific "shield" make/model, and the hardware info must be searched offsite. This leads directly to poor quality questions...

Tag [tag:Arduino] is the single most popular tag on electronics.SE, but that community doesn't generally have the patience to interface with less experienced Arduino users or deal with the various quirks of the Arduino toolchain. Low quality Arduino questions frequently get migrated (dumped) into Arduino.SE, where the very tool needed to improve question quality is missing. Here there's a very small cadre of experienced users answering a wide range of posts from new users, and the lack of schematic editor hobbles the core users -- so the site struggles to graduate.

I believe if we have a way to embed live circuits than we might have a better tool to explain things... It's not just a matter od schematics, but showing people the current flow usually maked their life a lot easier.
My votes goes to http://www.falstad.com/circuit, but I would love to see embeddable links


text:
Is there an easy way to enter formulas in questions?
I know math is not everybody's favorite, but sometimes you just don't get away without when designing a circuit for Arduino. MathJax is enabled on EE.SE; can we have that here too?
There are not many questions on the Arduino stack yet, but I invite everybody to add example questions that benefit from a MathJax below.

Yes, the way to request support for MathJax (LaTeX support) is to demonstrate a need for this in actual practice. As you suggested, the best way to make this happen is by compiling a collection of posts below which would substantively be improved with the addition to MathJax. If the benefit to this site can be demonstrated in actual use, we will bring it up for consideration. Good luck!

@RobertCartaino How to prevent "Trivial answer converted to comment"?

Sorry about that. It's an automated system. Add a bit of supporting text do describe why you think the post you linked would benefit from MathJax.

For the time being I use http://www.math.ucla.edu/~robjohn/math/mathjax.html You can place a button on your bookmark toolbar to enable MathJax on any page.

Yes, a formula feature is needed. The Arduino has both hardware and software functions that are often best described as formula's when asking questions.

PID loop's
Filters

often filters need to be calculated for the Hardware and then worked with in hardware.
the PWM used with RC to make A2D can be best described with 2PiRC formula.

Polynomial
CRC's

example question

Motor control
etc...

Why do some pins have a different PWM frequency?
Above mentioned question will benefit from MathJax. The formula when written without proper formatting quickly gets hard to read.

Another perfect example why we want something trivial as the ability to author formulas is in this question:
Why voltage at AREF is given by Vin * R2 / Rtotal

Here is one.  I posted basically the same question on both Arduino SE and Electrical Engineering SE.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/307586/need-help-calibrating-adc-input-using-a-voltage-divider
How can I seriously calibrate ADC voltage readings with Arduino Nano?
The answer I came to in EE SE made good sense to share on Arduino.  I thought it was all one system but have discovered that each SE runs different software.
I havn't had time to remove the LaTex codes used to make it understandable on the SE one.  It looks really bad on Arduino.
The only option I have s to go back to the answer on Arduino and convert the equations to their FORTRAN equivalents.  Which I haven't yet done.
So I posted this question here:
As we get more advanced in our use of Arduinos in ever more complex ways, it would be good if the Arduino SE supported Tex
I sure hope it can happen sometimes soon.
Here is the list of SE that allows it:
Which Stack Exchange sites use MathJax?

With respect to the adage, "Go read the datasheet," datasheets contain formulae such as:

Figure 1 – Waveform frequency equation.

Figure 2 – PWM frequency equation.

Figure 3 – PWM resolution in bits equation.

Figure 4 – Maximum external clock frequency equation.

Figure 5 – Equations to calculate the ratio of the incoming data rate and internal receiver baud rate.

Figure 6 – ADC conversion result.

Since the Arduino datasheets contain formulae, the Arduino forums should as well.
And here is one of many posts that would benefit from MathJax formulae:
Switching a Solenoid Using Arduino's 5V Output?

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Are clone-specific questions on topic for this site?
There are a lot of different Arduino clones of varying quality on the market. Obviously they are mostly equivalent to the standard ones, so hopefully the majority of questions should be widely applicable.
However, there may be cases where a clone's features, layout, and/or spec deviate from the norm, whether by mistake or by design.
Should this site include questions which relate to specific clones, or would that be off-topic?

I think they should be on-topic here... there isn't really a better site for them on the SE network.

What happens if they don't use the Arduino IDE / Wiring language -- think ElectricImp?

I didn't think Electric Imp is an "arduino clone"

@sachleen No, indeed, it's not. I am curious about how these not-Arduino, but similar area boards will be handled. Like, Pinoccio is shipping an arduino library, but also a whole web based software stack.

I think they should be fine. Most clones are just the same thing with extra, or removed, features.
I've also noticed, especially on /r/arduino that a lot of people get an Arduino without knowing its a clone. There's nothing wrong with that, and denying them the ability to ask questions would be no good for this site. Especially since we need people to ask questions to keep this site alive.
One thing we can do is require people to mention what board they are using. This can be in the question and/or tag. That way there is no confusion.

[Terminology note: in this answer I'm using the word "clone" as the original poster used it; most of the devices he and I are discussing would be called "derivatives" in the Arduino taxonomy.]
Yes, clones are absolutely on topic. "Arduino" most often refers not to specific hardware devices but the ecosystem that allows people easily to play with a lot of different hardware and software, usually (but not always) using the Arduino IDE. Much as "PCs" quickly evolved to a general set of platforms with a lot of characteristics in common rather than a specific set of machines built by IBM, Arduino from the beginning, with opening of the specifications and designs, been aimed at this; the official introduction states:

All Arduino boards are completely open-source, empowering users to build them independently and eventually adapt them to their particular needs.

The commitment of both Arduino (the company) and the semi-official (SparkFun, AdaFruit) and unofficial community to this is demonstrated by:

Instructions for building a clone* on the official Arduino site itself.
Different form factors both official and unofficial.
Microcontrollers ranging from slightly (ATmegta2560) to moderately (ATtiny) to rather (ESP32) to greatly (ARM Cortex) different.
Libraries offering similar functionality amongst official releases, unoffical libraries that become official, and other unofficial libraries that are suggested in official library documentation as alternatives.

I personally think one of the most beautiful projects I've even seen in the the Ardunio SE is Nick Gammon's torch locator, which involves nothing at all found on arduino.cc except the IDE, yet shows so much of the spirit of what Arduino is: useful real-world interaction, a good smidgen of hobbyist-level EE knowledge (the analysis of the expected lifetime), and "we don't need no ARM CPU running Linux to do this." (The original question also hits many of these points, too, particularly with the novel application.)
Arduino has always been about experimentation and playing with not just the official things supplied by Arduino itself but with almost anything anybody can make that can be fit into the ecosystem. "Clones," made for many different reasons, and ranging from almost exact copies to very different things, are clearly a part of that.

I think you meant ATtiny rather than "ATmini". Good answer +1!

Yes! Thanks for catching that. I've edited the post but, for things like this, you should feel free to edit other people's posts, too.

I normally would do an edit but, unlike the regular Arduino Stack Exchange,  that feature is disabled for me on meta.

Oh, so it is for answers not your own! Thanks for pointing that out.

@CurtJ.Sampson - don't re-edit your past misrepresentation of the Arduino website into this.  What you link is not instructions for creating a "clone" - but rather a functional alternative on a breadboard.  The actual Arduino policy on "clones" is here: https://blog.arduino.cc/2013/07/10/send-in-the-clones/

I am using "clone" in the sense the original poster used it, not in the particular and strict definition used on the page you referenced ("there may be cases where a clone's features, layout, and/or spec deviate from the norm"). As I said, if you have an issue with this, make your own answer to claim that what the original poster and I are talking about are not "clones."

@ChrisStratton: I've removed (again) the change you made to my answer and added a note explaining that the original poster and I are using a fairly loose definition of "clone." (We have good reasons for doing this.) Please don't re-start your edit war.

Hmmm, might sound petty, but I think I would have to agree with @ChrisStratton. The link is not how to make a clone (as in a Chinese clone, for example) but how to build a Barebones Arduino on a breadboard. The term Clone is generally used for a commercial rip off, whereas the term Barebones is generally used for an ATmega328 on a homemade PCB, stripboard/vero/ breadboard. I would assume that the former is the sense in which Peter (the OP) meant by clone, and certainly how I read the question - until I saw your answer, which IMHO uses the term "clone" rather misleadingly.

@Greenonline So what if I make a rip-off of the Arduino design, change it by building it on a breadboard per the article on the Arduino website, and sell that commercially? Is that a "clone" now? If "clone" dicussions were disallowed, would it be ok for me to discuss that breadboard here because I built it myself, but not ok for someone else to discuss that exact same breadboard if I'd sold it to him?

You would be selling a barebones Arduino kit on a breadboard, not a clone. You have not cloned an Arduino board design, with the PCB that it entails, per se. There is a lot more additional circuitry on a Arduino board (be it Uno, Mega, Micro, Mini or what have you), than there is on the barebones/standalone breadboarded version that you link to. Besides, I never stated that we can't, or should not, discuss clones here. I own exclusively clones, never bought an original. The issue is that you call the standalone a clone, when it isn't. Nowhere on that page is the word "clone" even mentioned.

@Greenonline That it's on breadboard instead of a PCB, has different parts, whatever, all come under "there may be cases where a clone's features, layout, and/or spec deviate from the norm, whether by mistake or by design." If you have an issue with calling things like that "clones", you need to take it up with question poster, not me, since I am simply using the terminology he used in the question. If you interpret his terminology differently, you ought to post an answer of your own explaining things in that light.


text:
When should questions be considered shopping recommendations?
I just found this question: Is there a color LCD display for an arduino? Should it be considered a shopping recommendation?

No, this isn't really what was meant by a shopping question. The author of this question is wondering if there is a way to do {x}, where {x} just happens to be something they will likely have to go out and purchase. That is very different than asking a photographer (for example) which camera they should buy.
Sometimes when we offer this type of general guidance, it is in response to a specific behavior we are trying to avoid. But oftentimes when these lessons get passed on, the underlying application gets lost and all we remember is the trigger word which says (in this case) "shopping = bad".
In the context of this community, a shopping question might be something like "What is the best sound add-on pack?" There are a lot of them out there, so unless the author has narrowed down their problem statement so there is only one (or very few) possible answers, the community is only guessing what will help that user specifically. That's what we're trying to avoid here.
It's a tough balancing act; trying to decide if a question is good for the site, versus learning from the past about what doesn't work for a community. Sometimes you simply have to see if this becomes a problem in actual practice, rather than anticipating problems that may never materialize. All I can suggest is, for now, to judge the individual question on its merits. Is it a useful questions for your community? And then circle around down the road if it turns out that this type of content does not work for your site.
Good question.

Okay, thanks. I can remember a lot on controversy about a similar question on another site.

I totally agree with Robert, but I wanted to add something:
It is important to note that Arduino.SE is nearly unique among the entire StackExchange network, as it revolves around a fairly extensive product line rather than an area of study/work.  (We share this "unique" spot with LEGO.SE and RaspberryPi.SE.)
Since we are focusing on a concrete product, some questions that would be considered "shopping" on other SE sites should not considered as such on this site.
(My two cents...)


text:
What is the elevator pitch for Arduino.SE?
From The 7 Essential Meta Questions of Every Beta

Imagine you’ve just gotten on an elevator with a friendly stranger. You
  have precisely one floor to describe your community to them. What
  would you say? The elevator pitch is a brief sentence that describes
  what your site is about. Every word counts!
Once decided, it can be sliced and diced to form:

the tagline
the motto
the blurb under the logo
a convenience redirect “nickname” for the site
perhaps eventually the domain name in some form

(Due to a variety of practical difficulties with domain names, we
  prefer to de-emphasize domain name selection. Most sites will retain
  their topic.stackexchange.com names indefinitely.)
Naming is hard — really hard. But if you can come up with a sensible
  elevator pitch for your community, it’s a great starting point.
For more detail see: Stack Exchange Naming for Dummies

Arduino: Electronics for makers made easy.

or

Arduino: Practical microcontroller powered electronics without a BSc.

Is the question asking us to create an elevator pitch for Arduino or Arduino.SE? I think your answer adresses the former, but should address the latter.

i would change the first to "Arduino: electronics made easy", plus, what is a BSc? (i've googled the answer, but that's not good for motto!)

Arduino.SE: The Adventure begins where the books and tutorials end!

runs

Got an Arduino question? Arduino.SE can answer it!

or

Got an Arduino question? Get it answered at Arduino.SE!

or

Got an Arduino question? Arduino.SE is the place to get your answers!

That's what I think an Arduino.SE elevator pitch should sound like. Don't you think?

These are vague and don't really describe our community as a whole. It should intrigue the person who sees this and want to join our site, not just "oh yeah it's cool come and join us." This doesn't differentiate us from any other forum-like site.

@AnnonomusPerson Yeah, I guess I didn't get what the question was about. I'll delete the answer altogether...

Leave it for reference.

Arduino: Yes! You can!
It may be too short for some of the things, but for moto 2-3 words is perfect size. It is remmembered and pronounced easy. Plus if you start describing something to someone that isn't much into it already, you can lose his interest very fast. Generalized messages like that are more prone to engage a person to delve into the matter. Even if someone have sceptical opinion.

For example:

What, do you want to tell me, you can build a robot with it?
 Yes! You can!
How about a plane or hellicopter?
 Yes! You can!
Hmm, how about to make my car or house talk?
 Yes! You can!
Sounds intriguing. I'll look into it... and thats my floor.

If we need to sell the site to more people, then we need to sell it. Not to desribe it.
The above example can be changed a little bit for questions about the site itself.

Can I ask there how to do a awesome X?
 Yes! You can!

It could be with different tone:
Arduino: For all of us!
Certanly at any case, it shouldn't be dry narrative.
EDIT:
I propose something like those or combination of them:
All things Arduino! Hardware! Software! People!
All things Arduino! Ideas! Hardware! Software!

or variation like that:
Everything Arduino! Hardware! Software! People!
Everything Arduino! Ideas! Hardware! Software!

I believe that it is descriptive enough, as it basically is summary of the site and still simple and short to be easy remembered and to stuck in the head of people. If we try to be specific, we always will omit something important or we will make it too long. Also on the picture linked by  Annonomus Person, most sites have description about one row, so I believe it will fit there nicely.
P.S. If you like it, or you agree with the general idea, please do post your own opinion or your own sugestions and/or variants. More people participating, the better.

A great idea: it encourages the user and it does imply a call to action. However, I disagree with this: Certanly at any case, it shouldn't be dry narrative. Yes, it shouldn't be dry, but we need to describe who we are, too. It should be a little bit longer that can be cut down into different parts. Also, it might be formed into the site switcher "snippet" (image), and "Yes, you can!" doesn't fit at all. You should try to add something else to it.

Well, I aknowledge the shortcomings for something so short, to be description. But the core of my post was, that in this case it should be little bit (or more) like marketing, than pure engeneering. "Site about small form factor open-hardware board for easy development etc." - this kind of description simply will never work very well, if at all. No matter how short or long it is, or how acurate or not it is. This was what I meant by "dry narrative" But you really got me thinking about it now :) I will update my post with new suggestion.

Nice edit: (this is a tedious process: I updated my answer four times already) but have a few suggestions: 1.) Ideas! We don't really supply/discuss ideas here, but I guess it could work... 2.) Would you really say "Arduino! Hardware! Software!" to a friend? I love your more modern approach, but it seems like we need a combination of yours and something like mine so we can make the more boring text (for things like the site-switcher) but use yours for advertising: a slice-n-dice is what most sites use.


text:
Is it OK to ask questions about "Arduino compatible" micros (not clones)?
There are many Arduino compatible micros and derivatives. I'm thinking specifically here of the Spark Core.
It's not a clone, but uses the Arduino Sketch language and is wi-fi IoT oriented.
Are question related to Arduino compatible devices applicable here?

possible duplicate of Are clone-specific questions on topic for this site?

@sachleen I tried to make it clear in the question that this is not about Clones. But perhaps that was misunderstood. Arduino compatible or derivative devices are NOT clones and generally provide another level of functionality that Arduino official boards don't have.

OK I'm already confused, is there an official distinction between compatible vs. clone anywhere, or should I ask that as a question?

@ChrisO Here's clarification from Massimo Banzi in Arduino blog: http://blog.arduino.cc/2013/07/10/send-in-the-clones/#.Uw29BhDYPxw

@akellyirl Thanks that answers my question.

Arduino Compatible == Clone. I don't really know where you're going with this....

@AnnonomusPerson (Arduino Compatibles, Derivatives) != Clones... Derivatives extend the functionality of Arduino in a meaningful way. Quoting from Massimo Banzi's Blog (ref: above) "Derivatives. These are products that are derived from the Arduino hardware design but they innovate either by providing a different layout and features often to better serve a specific market. These are the products that have also helped Arduino become so ubiquitous." Yes, Compatibles are more "Hazy" territory but usually they also extend Arduino functionality in some way.

My personal opinion is that the site should include within its scope all questions about:

The official boards
Questions about the official IDE
The range of shields available
Clones compatible with the IDE or the shields
Devices/chips that are mentioned as being accessories for Arduino

So, yes.

The thing about compatible devices is that whilst they are compatible in some way such as using the Sketch commands and providing Analogue and Digital I/Os, they don't necessarily meet the criteria you laid out. Nevertheless Arduino Sketches can port to these devices and they can provide additional benefits to an Arduino user and therefore may complement an Arduino user's toolkit of devices. Possible question for "compatibles" may be: library porting; equivalent capability etc...

I would include more IDEs to be in-topic, such as the Eclipse and Visual Studion Arduino plugins, WinAVR etc. What do you think?

@Ricardo I would consider such questions to be borderline. For example, my question on using RStudio with Arduino is considered off-topic. I think this deserves its own discussion.

What about Bareduinos (ATMEGA chip on a breadboard), only with the IDE or programing it?

@AnnonomusPerson Are you the user who participated last time as well? Nice to see you here :) Bareduino questions would depend on the specific instance. Its hard to say without an example to gauge the type of questions to be expected. Although, if the question seems too EE specific, then EE.SE would be a better home.

@AsheeshR Yeah I didn't know that they did a second beta however I didn't sign up so I think I accidentally used a bug to sign up! Haha :) I hope this one doesn't go to waste either. I'm hoping for Moderator, or at least temporary but I think I'm too late. Oh well! It does take a ton of time.

@AnnonomusPerson If you signed through the site link on the A51 page, then thats not a bug :) This beta seems to be quite different from last time. The questions are far more diverse. Anyways, I hope the same as well.

@AsheeshR But the question count is too low it seems like. 10ish per day... yikes. Working on that now. It is only private now but still... that's what really killed us last time

Yes. Arduino has encouraged derivative hardware from the start. In the introduction on the official site they say:

All Arduino boards are completely open-source, empowering users to build them independently and eventually adapt them to their particular needs.

(The above is taken from this answer.)


text:
Which tags need to be cleaned up?
The initial days of beta can be a little awkward for tags. This post is meant to be a community-wiki style list of tags that need to be cleaned up for cases where users (like me) don't have sufficient reputation to make the changes.
Please feel free to edit my answer and add any changes you see need to be made (or remove any changes that have been completed)

I went through a lot of these and cherry picked the obvious ones. We don't really create tags and synonyms until an actual use case or problem is demonstrated. For the rest, how to retag individual questions would need a bit more experience from an actual Arduino user, so I'll leave those until pro tem moderators are appointed.

Irrelevant Tags
These tags are mostly accidentally created and should be removed.

c++ Discussion Here

Vague Tags
These should be removed (maybe even blocked if there is an option in the SE engine) because they are too vague.

input Too vague. The question that uses it uses it fine, but it really doesn't help someone find that question, and interrupts should be sufficient.
ide should be split into arduino-ide and individual tags such as eclipse

Spelling
These tags are mostly ones that need to be separated with a "-".
[None]

Synonyms
Synonyms require significant reputation or moderator abilities to create. The "master tag" (or whatever the proper term is) will replace the synonym when typed.

atmega328 I don't know what to do about this one really but often people tag this along with uno/arduino-uno
build → compile Some beginners may tag it as build but for the physical construction of a project. Mods have decided to leave it and watch it.

Tags to watch in the future...
Tags for topics that may be deemed off-topic soon.

enclosure Will we allow shopping questions here?

Sorry, Severino is one particular type of Arduino board. Is that tag you are referring to as improperly puncutated?

Sorry, there is no questions under it yet. So I figured it had to do with this https://github.com/tarekziade/arduino/blob/master/mamacar/server.ino

No problem. In any case, I would be suspicious about any tags that end with the suffix .ino as would probably refer to a sketch somewhere, which may not be worth a tag for it.

I agree, Thanks for the feedback.

I disagree with this. Over half of the first 20 questions on http://arduino.stackexchange.com/ bear almost no relation to electronics. (Yes, I counted)

I agree with removing [tag:electronics], as it's a very "non-descriptive" tag.  Other tags (e.g. [tag:LED] or [tag:pins]) would make it obvious if a question is about electronics or not.  It's almost (but not quite) a "meta-tag."

Um... [tag:programming] is nowhere close to [tag:uploading]...

@hichris123 Your right... a new user still could confuse them though. I'll try to see what I can do and put a not in the wiki now.

PLEASE NOTE: If you do create a edit to this post to edit tags, please comment them out with <!--TAG CONTENT HERE--> to preserve it in case we ever need it again. Also, make sure your edit has been approved before commenting out any tags. Thanks!

Spelling errors

webserver should be web-server
r should be r-environment One letter tags tend to be confusing Language tags should always be the language name, till the point a conflict arises.

Merges

uno and arduino-uno should be the same (pending discussion)
due with arduino-due
The upload tag should be merged into the more established uploading tag.

Language tags should be simply language names. A person who would use the [tag:R] tag, would know what it is.


text:
When should an Arduino programming question be moved to Stack Overflow?
Programming is obviously a major part of using an Arduino, and a considerable amount of it is very domain specific (e.g. using particular libraries, or working with particular hardware).
However, I suspect we're likely to see general programming questions coming up as well here (especially from inexperienced hobbyists). For example, we may see questions about general C/C++ syntax, scope, data types, etc..
I think there should be some flexibility to avoid alienating site users. However, we'll presumably need to establish a guideline which indicates what kind of programming questions should be considered off-topic, and potentially better suited to Stack Overflow.
What should that guideline be?

A real key to this one will have to be where the relevant expertise is most likely to be found.  Forced migration from SO to here just because a tricky general programming or embedded question mentions arduino will be an issue to watch out for.

Simple — A "generic programming problem" that does not need an understanding of Arduino hardware or its programming  interface to solve belongs on Stack Overflow.
For example, trying to figure out why a programming loop is not terminating would be an issue for Stack Overflow. It doesn't matter if the program just happens to be for an Arduino application; trying to resolve generic issues ("how to program") are outside the scope of this community.

I would add to your post that if it's specific about the Arduino libraries (standard or imported) that it should probably be here. You don't need to know much about the Arduino hardware to answer, but it probably would get much better answers than the four views on SO that it would get with that many questions.

After some thought, I respectfuly disagree. Although there is a healthy tendency to avoid overlap between stacks, this is one that our communit would benefit of. It's similar to the overlap between Ar.SE and EE.SE in which an Arduino question with some electronics design can be asked in either stack. For more details, please see my new answer down below: http://meta.arduino.stackexchange.com/a/161/46

Hi, I don't think such a rule is viable, because people will not know whether their problem is Arduino-related or not. What we realistically can outlaw is questions about code which doesn't run on an Arduino.

What I like most about our new Arduino SE network is that we are now free to ask whatever questions about Arduino we want.
I often felt very restrained about asking an Arduino question in EE.SE, fearing that it would be downvoted and closed. I don't feel like that anymore.
So, while I agree with Robert that programming questions may be posted on SO, we should avoid consider Arduino programming questions off-topic here. The OP should be free to choose where to post an Arduino programming question.
Given its high traffic and size, SO may now be the place to post a pure Arduino programming question, if you want an answer quickly. But, in time, I hope we can build enough momentum so that our site is the preferred one for all Arduino questions.
On the other hand, if the question has nothing to do with Arduino (ie. for loops, syntax), then I agree with the OP that we should move it to SO.
Update: After some thought, and a question that's been asked today, I changed my mind and wanted you all to think about it for a bit. Although there is a healthy tendency to avoid overlap between stacks, this is one that our communit would benefit of. It's similar to the overlap between Ar.SE and EE.SE in which an Arduino question with some electronics design can be asked in either stac. For more details, please see my new answer down below.

I disagree with "never," but I agree with the sentiment.  For example: A question saying "I know how to declare an integer with the Arduino, but how do I work with decimal numbers?" or "What's a while loop?" etc. should be off topic here.  However, a question about the Serial library for the Arduino should be on topic, IMO.

@anorton Agreed. It was indeed too strong. I've replaced "never" by "avoid".

I agree with you, @Ricardo but I think that question that regards aruino specific programming. Such as arduino pre-assembler, library coding principles and such is in the domain of Arduino SE (even when the question is in part about syntax)

I know we all agreed that pure programming questions belong in StackOverflow. But I was a little sad today that we had to put on-hold this question, Check to see if all the values in an array are larger than x and set them to zero. Here's what the OP claimed to argue against closing/migrating his question:

well , Im using it for and lcd connected to an arduino, but its ok u can deleate it I figured it out –

That made me rethink the issue. So I'm posting this new answer so you can also think about it.
In that particular case, the OP had a very simple programming question, that most of us here in Arduino.SE could have answered in less than 5 minutes. Granted, it was a pure programming question that, under current guidelines, should have been put on-hold and prepared for migration to SO. And one of the mods diligently have done so. As expected.
But my thinking is that everybody lost a little with this behaviour:

The OP didn't get his question answered. Instead, he was told his question doesn't belong here because of a guideline he doesn't even know about. For new users, it's common to interpret that as "you don't belong here", because he doesn't know all the context we are in.
The OP has an Arduino board and will have plenty more questions. But now he's confused as to whether his questions are welcome here. So, we probably lost an active user because of a rule that we forced ourselves to follow.
At least in this beta phase, we need the questions. It was an Arduino question, but we gave that up.

Rethinking the matter, to me the issue whether pure programming questions are on topic here is the same as an Arduino question that involves some electronics design posted on EE.SE. In that case, the question is on-topic on both sites, and it's up to the user to decide where to post it.
In summary, the new interpretation I'm proposing is that pure programming questions are on-topic here as long as they come from an Arduino context. These should not be migrated to SO. That's because everybody wins if it was posted here and we keep it here. We have the expertise to answer it, for sure, because they are likely to be about C++, the libs we are so familiar with, and other Arduino details that we are specialized at.
By keeping the questions here, we save the OP the trouble and ansiety of having his or her questions migrated. And one day, as our site grows, we will be able to answer those questions better than SO.
What do you think?

Mind you that I'm still against boat questions (e.g. "What is the best movie for Arduino users?")

Despite being the one who closed the question, I'm inclined to agree. In fact, I probably would have left the question open if it had actually mentioned that it was for an Arduino project. What we want to avoid is giving people free-reign to use this site as a beginner's version of SO. As a side note, it's worth mentioning that the OP had already posted the question on SO, and someone had incorrectly advised him to ask here instead. It seems silly to keep the question in both places.

See response here. cc @PeterR.Bloomfield

+1 for "everybody lost a little with this behaviour:"

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with having some questions be on topic for more than one site.  We can't assume people who program Arduinos have the programming experience necessary to determine beforehand if their bug that they are confused enough to ask about online is directly related to the Arduino architecture or not.  Some people asking may never have done any programming that wasn't on an Arduino.  I don't think we should set any criteria where only the experts can tell what site a question should go to.  If there's an Arduino involved, it should be allowed.

I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent. Newcomers in particular should be given some leeway.

+1 Sorry, I had not read your answer before, but it is basically the same I said in my new answer today, so we agree. Good! In my answer, however, I had the chance of discussing an specific case that came out today. Take a look if you have the chance as it illustrates your point as well.

We should leave them alone until we get about half way through beta. Due to the site being in Private Beta, I don't think that we should move them yet, because it would make those questions un-accessible until the site goes into Beta (which at the minimum will be 1 week). Once we get going good, I think that we should determine what should be carried over to Arduino SE, and what would be considered duplicate based on what has already been asked on SO SE.
I do agree that we will need to do this, but now is not the time.

I think you might have misunderstood my question. I'm not suggesting we move anything from SO to Arduino SE. I was asking about the scope of Arduino SE, and how we determine what kind of programming questions are suitable to be asked here (as opposed to what would be more suitable on SO).

Ahh, gotcha thx for the clarification

Just adding to Robert's answer, one simple check would be to read a question excluding any mentions of Arduino and then seeing if it makes sense. If the question does make sense without any mentions of the Arduino platform, then it is a generic programming question. Otherwise, if the Arduino mention is critical to answering the question, then it is on-topic here.
Ex. Why is this loop not terminating on the Uno? would be off-topic as it is unlikely that Arduino's architecture would be causing an infinite loop.

I posted an alternative answer to this question and I wanted you to take a look and comment. Basically I'm saying, why take the trouble of removing Arduino mentions to see if the question still makes sense? Why reflect so much to check if a Arduino programmming question is pure programming or not? Why not just answer it? We are certainly very capable of answering any Arduino questions, aren't we? Well, it's just food for thought.

@Ricardo We are capable of answering a wide variety of questions ranging from software design, algorithms, data structures, electrical concepts, electronics designs and usage, etc.. Just the fact that we can answer them and that they happen to be in the neighbourhood of our actual purpose, doesnt mean we should. The wider scope we have, the more diluted the focus of the site becomes. How? A person who may come here specifically interested in Arduino, will not feel as comfortable on seeing questions on transistors and MOSFETs ...

... being interfaced to control an external device or somebody interested in a lighting a few LEDs will be lost on seeing a question on software engineering models being discussed. Why is this bad? The limited resources that we as a community have to solve such issues gets spread thin over multiple divergent fields of study, some of which may be so far off what we actually started with, that the site becomes a confused mix of multiple things.

@Ricardo Think of this as it scales up, rather than at the present size and activity levels. While I realize my tone may be ominous, the fact is there are sites at present dealing with exactly this issue and I have been involved in the clean-up going on. Its a pain to sort out such messes later on (100-200+ off-topic posts), plus the gains that there may appear to be at present do not last beyond a certain point.

Point taken. We can certainly keep the existing guidelines for pure programming questions. I just wanted to express my opinion after seeing that specific question closed.

I am in agreance with @Ricardo's most recent answer. I think there is a lot of overflow between stack sites and what is most appropriate for one user is not necessarily most appropriate for another. Given this site is in beta, unless the question has nothing to do with an Arduino, it could remain here to benefit all users.
Even a generic question about data types or timers mean different things to dedicated AVR hobbyists, and Arduino aficionados ;^)
As someone who is relatively new to SO, I have posted questions on various sites, but my main three are the main site, Ask Different (Apple stuff) and here. I have asked an Arduino question (which was more based around analog electronics) so I asked in EE. Funnily enough, I went with a programming solution, so it could probably have been asked here.
Leave it up to the OP and unless they get it drastically wrong, move/close/hold it in that case. After all, there probably is a reason they chose to come here instead of somewhere else.
Coming back to "appropriateness" I mention above, and by way of example: where would a question about mechanical "bounce" be better placed?

Generically covering all bases, micro, electronics, programming, for my Arduino project (Ar.SE)
Programatically on main site
Electronically on (EE.SE)
one of the other programming SE sites

I would argue that here is just as appropriate as either of the others, mainly because on EE you would probably get steered for an analog solution. Any programming response is purely going to be about that, programming. Whereas here, at Arduino, you're going to get (hopefully) tried and tested solutions from other Arduino users which could include one or the other method, allowing a broader range of answers. Essentially, debouncing is either a programming or an electrical issue, but it still has a place here (IMHO).

I disagree with these two answers suggesting that "generic programming questions" should be off-topic. The thing is, it's very hard to define what's a "generic programming question" unless you already know the answer.
In Robert's example, "why a programming loop is not terminating" the reason could be that the termination condition is while(counter = 1), which would make it a generic C++ question. Or the reason could be that the user called a delay() function in a loop running in the interrupt context, which is unanswerable by a C++ programmer who doesn't know the implementation details specific to Arduino. And the asker doesn't know which one it is, else they wouldn't be asking.
You can't just decide that "generic programming questions are off-topic" and expect people to follow that rule, unless you explain them how they can tell it's a generic programming question. For example, you could say: "compile it on Windows, and if your code runs fine then it's an Arduino problem, otherwise it's generic programming error". Unfortunately, that won't work as Arduino code cannot run on Windows.
One group of questions we can reasonably define and forbid is the "my code does not compile" kind. avr-gcc is a well-known compiler supporting rather standard C++, so such questions would be 100% on-topic on SO. But I don't see much benefit for us in doing so.

I don't think you should send people coming here to Stack Overflow.  Users that would be attracted to this site are going to be new to the hobby, probably new to programming, and probably don't know up from down.  Stack Overflow makes a point to be unfriendly to new users, low level questions, "things that everyone [should] knows", and presumes that you're pulling aside a senior coworker to waste his time, so you'd better make it quick.
If I wanted to encourage people into my hobby, niche, or product, I would not send them to such a place.
To quote Ricardo:

But my thinking is that everybody lost a little with this behaviour:
The OP didn't get his question answered. Instead, he was told his question doesn't belong here because of a guideline he doesn't even
  know about. For new users, it's common to interpret that as "you don't
  belong here", because he doesn't know all the context we are in.
The OP has an Arduino board and will have plenty more questions. But now he's confused as to whether his questions are welcome here.
  So, we probably lost an active user because of a rule that we forced
  ourselves to follow.
At least in this beta phase, we need the questions. It was an Arduino question, but we gave that up.

Regardless if you agree with my statement about Stack Overflow, this is a new user's takeaway when you say Nah bruh, go ask that somewhere else.


text:
Are questions about IDEs other than the official IDE on-topic?
IDE's such as Eclipse, Emacs and Vim can be used with extensions to program the board.

Are questions about installing IDEs being used to program the board on-topic?
Are questions about using IDEs that are being used to program the board on-topic?
Are questions about specific features of IDEs that are being used to program the board on-topic? Ex. code highlighting, code indentation, etc.
Are questions about uploading code through various IDEs on-topic?

For the purposes of this question, IDE refers to unofficial IDEs plus Arduino extension that may or may not be listed on Arduino.cc

My view on the four issues presented:

Installing IDEs should be off-topic unless the install process is substantially different when using the Arduino plugin.  (Example of exception: if you had to download Eclipse from an entirely different source, install it in some special way, etc., that would be fine here.)
If the question is about using the IDE itself, that should be off topic.  (e.g. "How do I create a project in Eclipse?"--no.  "How do I turn on/off Intellisense?"--no.)  If the question relates in a substantial way to using the Arduino extension to the IDE, that should be on-topic. (e.g. "How do I use the "--yes.)
No.  Specific features like code highlighting would be best asked on Stack Overflow, unless there is something very special about Arduino libraries that makes them hard to highlight, etc.
I would contend this should be "yes."  Uploading is something that wouldn't typically be built-in to the IDE (and would be introduced with the Arduino plugin), or it would be something platform dependent (e.g. uploading to an AVR chip is different than an Intel chip, etc.)

Agreed on all the above. IDEs are massively complicated, so we can't hope to answer all questions about them. Limiting our scope to stuff that's fairly unique for Arduino makes a lot of sense.

Are questions about installing IDEs being used to program the board on-topic?
No. But if an IDE has Arduino support maybe questions on how to set it up for arduino could be on topic.
Are questions about using IDEs that are being used to program the board on-topic?
Maybe. Again, if it's specific to doing something with Arduino it could be on topic.
Are questions about specific features of IDEs that are being used to program the board on-topic? Ex. code highlighting, code indentation, etc.
No. This deals with IDE features and has nothing to do with Arduino. The exception would be the official software provided by Arduino.
Are questions about uploading code through various IDEs on-topic?
Yes. It has to do with Arduino specifically.

Ask "What does this have to do with Arduino?" and if the answer to that question is not significant enough, then the question is probably off topic.

+1 because I 75% agree with you. Your third dot point This deals with IDE features and has nothing to do with Arduino, well, maybe it does. Ex, code highlighting and having Arduino code suitably highlighted would be on-topic IMHO


text:
How can we guarantee high quality in the questions and answers on our site?
One important aspect of every Stack Exchange site is guaranteeing that the questions and answers are high quality? How should we address quality in our site?

As I said in another answer, we should keep our scope broad and our minds open. But that doesn't mean we won't worry about quality. In summary, I think we should do appreciate questions that:

establishes a context (ie. why are you doing what you're doing)
has enough upfront research (the OP tried to solve the problem before coming to us)
shows us how the boards are connected (using schematics or those Arduino drawings linking pins with colored lines). We suggest that we aim at the same high standards as our Big Brother EE.SE site, as explained in those links:

Good tools for drawing schematics
Rules and guidelines for drawing good schematics

what else?

We should also try and educate instead of censoring. If someone asks a poor quality question, editors should educate these users on how to ask better questions. The editors should try and improve the questions instead of quickly close them. So, we should avoid closing questions as much as possible. We should only close questions that are hopeless.

Good suggestions. To help people out, I think it would probably be useful to have some kind of documentation on how to create and upload schematics or other drawings.

@PeterR.Bloomfield - That we already have - from our big brother EE site. See my updated anwser above.

For "what else," link to, in order of preference: 1) product pages that have links to schematics and data sheets, 2) directly to data sheets and schematics, and 3) product pages without such links.
I've written ten or so answers in the last couple of days, and more often than not I've had to track down product information myself and, all to frequently, hope that what I'd found was actually for the right product.


text:
How do we get syntax highlighting?
I was adding some code to a question, and noticed that I couldn't get syntax highlighting to work. I added a language hint as is used on Stack Overflow, but it had no effect.
I appreciate that most SE sites won't need syntax highlighting (which is presumably why it's not enabled by default), but obviously it could be very useful for us. Is that something which will be sorted out if/when we graduate to 'proper' SE status, or can we realistically do something about it just now?

http://meta.electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/340/syntax-highlighting-should-be-supported-on-electrical-engineering-like-on-so

Would also be nice to have formula as well.

@Cybergibbons See http://meta.arduino.stackexchange.com/questions/13/is-there-an-easy-way-to-enter-formulas-in-questions

I see that sytnax highlighting appears to have been updated and lost the hint of "" . I looked back and confirmed that it did used to work in cases where the snibit of code was not auto detected, nor by the tag. It might be advantageous to have it as default.

This is enabled, and on by default in the programming tag.
You can use language hints to fine-tune the highlighting if the defaults aren't acceptable.

Thanks Shog. I wonder if it ought to be extended to all questions though? I suspect there will be several instances where we need to include code of some kind, even when the question isn't directly about programming.

As I said, you can use the language hints for more precise control of this - including enabling highlighting in posts where it wouldn't otherwise occur. A moderator here (once you have them) can set defaults on other tags if need-be.

What about Arduino specific support? Arduino is in itself a language, of sorts.

We use Prettify for highlighting. If it ain't supported by Prettify, it ain't supported here.

@Shog9 Why isn't the highlighting working here: http://arduino.stackexchange.com/q/692/275 I edited in the language hint plus added the programming tag.

Looks fine to me, @Philip

@Shog9 True, now it does. Although I am not sure whether it's thanks to the programming tag or the language hint. Could it be, that as long as an edit is under review, even I cannot see the syntax highlighting?

@Shog9 Simply adding the language hint doesn't seem to work as proven here: http://arduino.stackexchange.com/q/699/275

Needs to be on its own line, not abutting the previous paragraph, @Philip.

@Shog9 Ah, thanks. Good to know. Perhaps a respective note should be added to the language hints markdown page.

Very interesting approach, but often code is included but is not the core of the question so the OP might not think to use that tag.   Also, how many more tags trigger special operations here?  Can we add a LaTex tag to allow us to describe things mathematically?

Not sure what you're asking in the first part of your comment, @SDsolar. As for LaTeX, yes that can be enabled here if it would be routinely useful; you can post a separate request with examples of posts where such formulas would be beneficial.

Simply edit the question to add the following text before the code:
<!-- language-all: c++ -->

Note: This should not be indented by the 4 spaces and should have a carriage return before and after.
This also works:
<!-- language-all: lang-cpp -->

Stack Exchange uses Google Prettify for all of the syntax highlighting.
Markdown Editor Help

Code blocks can be highlighted using Google Prettify. In many cases, the syntax highlighting language will be inferred from the question's tags.

And I suppose people are expected to be born with this knowledge?

@SDsolar I agree. That is why I have put this answer here, so people can find it here and add it to their post/edit.

It is documented on the Markdown Editor Help page (https://arduino.stackexchange.com/editing-help#syntax-highlighting). I have added this to my answer.

TNX, @sa_leinad.  The fact that I found here it is proof that your method worked.  Have a great day.


text:
Who will be the Moderator? What attributes should they have?
As you guys know, the Moderators are usually chosen at the end of the Private beta period. Seeing that we have minimum 5 days left, I think it is the perfect time to outline what we would like to see in a moderator. A moderator needs to be someone who not only knows arduino inside and out, but also can suggest creative criticism, and who is always can have a positive attitude.
But that isn't everything that would make the perfect moderator. I am wondering what qualities make the perfect moderator, be sure to include how important these attributes are!
For example:
Knows Arduino inside and out - Necessary

Temporary moderators are appointed at the end of the Private Beta.  These aren't permanent.  Anyway--I feel it's a little early for this question... it will be fairly obvious who is (and isn't) taking an active interest in the community (asking/answering questions), as well as its governance (meta participation).  Furthermore, moderators are, in general, supposed to be "invisible"--the community is supposed to decide what is on/off topic, the mods are there simply to make sure no one is being rude/inappropriate/getting out of hand.

@anorton I would argue that the diamond should be invisible, not necessarily the user who holds it. Also, in the initial stages, moderators have to be heavily involved as there are not enough users at the needed reputation levels to carry out all the moderation activities needed.

@AsheeshR eh... maybe "invisible" didn't convey the term I meant.  My point is that Moderators shouldn't take on a "one man army" approach to keeping the site in check--they need to ensure that they are acting as representatives of the community, rather than a ruling class.  But, that's material for a different thread, methinks.

Thanks for all the feedback

Actually, knowing Arduino too well is far from  necessary. They should be knowledgeable, yes, but anything more is just a bonus for the community and their efforts should be focussed as such ;-)
What is needed in a community moderator is the ability to communicate clearly and effectively, as well as have the patience to handle all types of members of the community respectfully. Also, to function impartially even when faced with difficult situations such as that may happen involving respected members, arguments, flame wars, etc.
Community moderators aren't referred to as janitors for nothing. There is a fair bit of work to be done behind the scenes, a lot of which may be fairly involved and taxing. The only reward for this effort is seeing the site grow and move towards graduation (which can be rather satisfying :) )
The only thing necessary is that the individual should be active and involved in the community through content generation, meta participation, chat availability, editing, reviewing and voting (close/reopen). Also, in general the individual should be helpful and guide new members of the community wherever needed.
Evangelising the community and being a good representative of Arduino.SE wherever the situation may so demand would be great too!

TL;DR Moderators should know Arduino.SE and we should know them; nothing else is needed.

+1 you do look like a good candidate to me.


text:
Tag by board or by chip?
The issue of using board names as tags has already come up in meta, but I was wondering about chip numbers? E.g. the ATmega328 at the heart of the Uno.
There is technically a definite distinction between questions about the chip itself, and questions about the board it's mounted on. This is particularly significant when dealing with clones/compatibles, or homemade boards, where the wiring and other factors can vary substantially. There is therefore potentially an argument for tagging by chip number where possible, so that relevant questions can be found more easily.
However, it seems unrealistic to expect inexperienced users to know the chip numbers. Most people are only likely to recognise terms like "Uno" and "Leonardo" etc., so it seems inevitable that we'll end up mostly going by board names.
Is there a happy medium here? Would tag synonyms be appropriate (e.g. making "Uno" a synonym for "ATmega328"), or would that just make it more confusing?

Microprocessor tags are a bad idea. Arduino boards are known by their series names and not chip numbers, and we should follow the same naming convention.
The microprocessor can be identified accurately for the official boards by knowing the board name and their revision number. For custom boards or clones, it is the onus of the OP to mention the relevant details in the question itself. If such detail is missing, it can be clarified via comments.

I agree with AsheeshR... microprocessor tags should not be the "default" here.  Microprocessor tags fit in better with a community like EE.SE, where a more detailed knowledge of electronics is expected.
Arduino users will be more apt to type in arduino-uno (or similar) instead of tagging with atmega328. Synonym-izing the tags isn't good, either, as it is possible for a non-arduino-uno board to use an atmega328.  This would lead to substantially awkward tagging.

Not to mention that newer users don't memorise their chip number!


text:
What should our "policy" be for questions that wouldn't survive on EE but aren't exactly fit for this site?
I recently posted When should I use a transistor, mosfet, and when should I use a relay? to see how the community would react. (Only 3 views so far so not really a big reaction yet, as you can see.) Here's the controversy:

Why it should stay here (obviously my own opinions here, add yours in the comments):

That person would get outrageous downvotes from EE members because it is a simple question
This site is for beginners and trying to get them to use Stack Exchange
EE might refuse to answer it
It still is applicable (if they do ask how to control it)

Why it should be migrated:

It doesn't have to do much with Arduino besides if someone asks "How do I control it with Arduino"
There would be overlap with EE.SE

The number of reasons for keeping it outnumbers the migrating, but those two reasons are very big. I doubt that the Stack Exchange team wants us creating duplicate sites with much overlap: it may be a matter of time until advanced questions start coming up here.
I do know that this is similar to other questions on meta but no real policy of on-the-fence questions has been established. What do you think we should do? How can we prevent this from happening on a daily basis if they aren't fit for Arduino.SE?

In my opinion there are quite a few beginners questions on EE.SE. What is usually frowned upon is when a question obviously has not been researched and misses trivial knowledge before being asked.

We are looking at this wrong.
This question When should I use a transistor, mosfet, and when should I use a relay? clearly shows knowledge on the part of the OP of basic EE and is not entirely relevant to Arduinos in the way it is phrased. It should either be re-written, migrated, or closed.
How a beginner to Arduino-verse would ask the same question is:

I am trying to control A  with Arduino B. The power requirements for A are this but B provides something else. How do I control B using A without burning out A?

Or

The control current for A seems far higher than the safe value of B. What method can I use to throttle the current and/or control the current input to B through A?

In either of these cases, the question highlights that the OP has a problem, has maybe tried to solve it, and most likely lacks the specific knowledge or terminology to reach the solution to the problem themselves without a nudge in the right direction.
These questions, and this audience, is one of the reasons that this site is up and I feel we should keep such questions within our scope. The usual restrictions of basic research, clear problem and progress made should be applied and questions found lacking should be closed. The level of difficulty should not solely be a parameter on the basis of which questions should be closed.

This is very right.  The "example question," as written, should be migrated (and is why I wrote what I did in my answer).  But I agree that the examples you've listed above should be on-topic.

I am one of the (as of now) 3 people who have voted to close the question as belonging on EE.SE.
This site is not "EEBeginners.SE," and we should not try to become that.  Especially in private beta, we need to stay away from making this site a perfect subset of EE.
The question, as written, doesn't relate to Arduinos in the least.  Even just tagging on "How would I control one with an Arduino?" doesn't really make it obviously on-topic--it doesn't focus primarily on Arduino usage, and relates more to choosing between electrical components.
Something I had to come to terms with last Arduino beta period was that not all questions deserve to have a home on Stack Exchange.  Certain "beginning EE" questions might never be accepted on SE because of the culture of EE.SE.  Just because the question isn't accepted there doesn't mean it is on topic here.

You do bring up a few good points: there may never be a home on SE for some of these questions, and we don't want to be Beginners EE.SE either. BTW I cast the final close vote. Although it is my own question, I just tried it to see if it would provide good answers that wouldn't come up on EE. It, however, would've been good on EE too. I'm going to try to see if I can get the post locked for reference, or if it should be deleted.


text:
Should we add some content on our site that is widely known to get more users on our site?
(Obviously, we shouldn't be focusing solely on getting users in a private beta, but I want to add some content to the site and the current content is limited.
Let me give an example. Can I do a "Q & A style" of what are the curved lines by some of the pin numbers? or should I not post anything like that. Here's some obvious pros/cons:
Pros:

Can help get new users if they are searching this question. If we grow enough to be 90% of the time in the top 3 listings on Google, we might gain a large chunk of new users that way
If done correctly, it can add an example of well content to our site
We can gain reputation!!! (Just kidding about that last one...)
Help with question count to try to improve the odds of this beta surviving and give it a "jump start"

Cons:

Wastes server resources
Some users who don't know it's a Q & A post might downvote it because the OP didn't "put much effort into it" by not Googling it.

The very motivation behind me participating on Stack Exchange sites is that we share and, in many instances, generate knowledge, that is usually hard to find and/or not widely available or known.
Simply duplicating content that can be found in lots of other reputable sites is in my belief, not what we are here to do, and we should refrain from doing so.
However, if we have information to add to such widely available content, then yes, it is worth posting on this site.

I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact, encourage it to some extent. I've done a couple of question/answers myself.
I come mainly from SO so my opinion is based on that. Google any programming question, no matter how simple or basic it is, and you'll find a stack overflow result on the first page.
Arduino.SE can be the one-stop for people's Arduino questions. Is that not the goal of this site? Sure the answers are out there, but most of the questions on this site (and many on SO) are out there on Google, too. But the point of SE is to have them all in one place.
So that's a fine question if you ask me. Sure it'll be in the Arduino docs, but you won't be able to ask Google "what are the curved lines by some of the pin numbers [on Arduino]?" and find the answer. You could if it was on Arduino.SE.
Also: all the pros clearly outweigh the cons in your list.