It's been in public beta since June 26, 2012.

The site metrics (traffic etc) are useful for taking the pulse of the site, but they're but one of many factors that goes into deciding whether a site deserves to graduate. In short, the site will stay in beta for as long as it needs to to build a stable community.

The overall health of the community is a very subjective thing to measure (metrics really can only take you so far), but can mostly be read by voting and site/meta activity. Are good questions/answers getting upvoted and bad questions/answers getting downvoted? Are problematic posts getting closed and/or deleted quickly, or are they lingering until moderator intervention is needed? Are problems and concerns getting brought up in meta and prompting healthy discussion?

In other words, is the community working to build a site it can be proud of? And above all else, is it succeeding in its ultimate purpose, namely giving actual focussed answers to questions with a minimum of noise?

It's been in public beta since June 26, 2012.

The site metrics (traffic etc) are useful for taking the pulse of the site, but they're but one of many factors that goes into deciding whether a site deserves to graduate. In short, the site will stay in beta for as long as it needs to to build a stable community.

The overall health of the community is a very subjective thing to measure (metrics really can only take you so far), but can mostly be read by voting and site/meta activity. Are good questions/answers getting upvoted and bad questions/answers getting downvoted? Are problematic posts getting closed and/or deleted quickly, or are they lingering until moderator intervention is needed? Are problems and concerns getting brought up in meta and prompting healthy discussion?

In other words, is the community working to build a site it can be proud of? And above all else, is it succeeding in its ultimate purpose, namely giving actual focussed answers to questions with a minimum of noise?