Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stack Exchange 2.0

blog.stackexchange.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 103 posts

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#41

Post by billybob »

cryptnoob wrote: post #20

I find myself emotionally torn about this. This is sharecropping, pure and simple. That's bad, since it's not me doing the share cropping. I suspect they can be very successful. Usenet was wonderful .. until it wasn't. A network of sites that can give us high value information instead of the adwords dreck that is polluting the web, should indeed, be a net positive to the world. Much like an interstate highway is a ne…

It is sharecropping to the extent that StackOverflow is sharecropping, but not as much as Yahoo Answers, Experts Exchange and others. Yes, you provide content and someone else makes money. On the other hand, you get answers and the content you provide is Creative Commons. You can download it all and start your own site if you like. I'd say that's a pretty open-handed and friendly approach.

Does a better alternative exist?

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#42

Post by billybob »

marbletiles wrote: post #21

They realised that StackExchange was failing, but because they don't realise the reasons why their attempted correction is only making it worse. Their software is a hideously complicated and over-engineered attempt to twist human relationships into math. It only works on StackOverflow because: a) The tech community was desperate for an alternative to hidebound mailing lists on one hand and expertsexchange on the othe…

1) I don't think they're trying to model 'the complexity of human relationships.' That's what Facebook tries to do. The trust metrics are crude, but the real goal seems to be to get credible upvotes for answers.

I use SO all the time, have great success, and haven't made any friends there. Because that's not what it's for.

2) Maybe this model won't work for EnthusiasticCatBreeders.com, but it will probably work for a lot of sites. Maybe it will self-select for topics where the people interested are a bit nerdy.

That's OK. There is still a lot of room for nerdy growth. I can imagine sites about cell phones, economics, geomapping, and lots of other topics where the audience is a bit nerdy, there are right and wrong answers, and this will probably work.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#44

Post by wwalker3 »

telemachos wrote: post #17
zavulon wrote: post #10

I'm really tired of political bias sipping into everything I read on topics not related to politics. It's such bad business too. Why would you make a snarky comment risking pissing 50% of your readers off, when you can simply contain yourself and stay on subject instead?

I looked and looked, and my first thought was "He doesn't like Schoolhouse Rock? Schoolhouse Rock isn't political." Then I noticed this from the start of the article, "Like the small-town mayor who suddenly finds herself running an entire state, our ambitions for Stack Overflow keep growing." I have a hard time finding that to be anything but a casual and not very detailed analogy. Sarah Palin -> lots of ambition::th…

They also mention running for Vice President of the US, so it's not exactly subtle.

I just don't see the upside to bringing in such a polarizing political figure. Regardless of what you think of Sarah Palin, it hits a sour note to find her in a product pitch.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#45

Post by proee »

marbletiles wrote: post #21

They realised that StackExchange was failing, but because they don't realise the reasons why their attempted correction is only making it worse. Their software is a hideously complicated and over-engineered attempt to twist human relationships into math. It only works on StackOverflow because: a) The tech community was desperate for an alternative to hidebound mailing lists on one hand and expertsexchange on the othe…

Why is Stack Exchange considered a failure? Don't they have a ton of exchange sites (if not thousands). $100/month x 1k = $100k Month in revenue.

Seems they would be quite happy with that sort of recurring revenue...

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#47

Post by spolsky »

tptacek wrote: post #3

This harks back to our corporate goal to “make the Internet a better place to get expert answers to your questions.” A ghost town, without traffic, does not get people answers, but it does draw a few people away from other sites that might do so. We do not believe that the Internet benefits from putting up placeholder sites with negligible traffic that do not attract high quality communities. And we want the Stack Ex…

I consider Jason a friend (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/podcast-56/), a very smart guy, and a great entrepreneur, although I have a different philosophy than he does on how to build a Q&A site.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#48

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

marbletiles wrote: post #21

They realised that StackExchange was failing, but because they don't realise the reasons why their attempted correction is only making it worse. Their software is a hideously complicated and over-engineered attempt to twist human relationships into math. It only works on StackOverflow because: a) The tech community was desperate for an alternative to hidebound mailing lists on one hand and expertsexchange on the othe…

I think it has more to do with not being able to leverage their personal blog audiences against other topic areas. It was easy for them to seed Stack Overflow just by talking about it on their blogs.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#49

Post by icey »

proee wrote: post #45
marbletiles wrote: post #21

They realised that StackExchange was failing, but because they don't realise the reasons why their attempted correction is only making it worse. Their software is a hideously complicated and over-engineered attempt to twist human relationships into math. It only works on StackOverflow because: a) The tech community was desperate for an alternative to hidebound mailing lists on one hand and expertsexchange on the othe…

Why is Stack Exchange considered a failure? Don't they have a ton of exchange sites (if not thousands). $100/month x 1k = $100k Month in revenue. Seems they would be quite happy with that sort of recurring revenue...

AFAIK they haven't actually started charging for Stack Exchange sites yet.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#50

Post by proee »

icey wrote: post #49
proee wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Stack Exchange considered a failure? Don't they have a ton of exchange sites (if not thousands). $100/month x 1k = $100k Month in revenue. Seems they would be quite happy with that sort of recurring revenue...

AFAIK they haven't actually started charging for Stack Exchange sites yet.

So why not flip the switch then?
Post reply on HN