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

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#91

Post by robryan »

xelipe wrote: post #16
ajg1977 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it sounds more like they have completely changed their business plan. Before: Provide communities and companies the software and hosting that enabled the creation of high-quality Q&A sites. Now: Create a carefully cultivated garden of user-maintained Q&A sites with active communities and minimal overlap. And that's fine of course, but it seems a little odd to judge the former was failing (after what, six mon…

Their new business model is more complicated than their previous business model. The five steps to citizenship seems like a weird concept. People that want to host a Q&A site like these don't want to be told they aren't good enough to have a top-level domain. Imagine wanting a blog and WordPress or Tumblr thought you undeserving of a top-level domain. Stack Exchange 2.0 has more steps to have a top-level domain site…

Well it's not really like anyone will be running these sites independent of Joel, Jeff and co. So really this is just a mostly automated method of spinning off the software and getting a vibrant community at launch like SO had rather than stabbing in the dark at what people actually want.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#92

Post by bluethunder »

I would argue that some tweaks to their original plan would have make it work much better, plus some plain old evangelising.

The pricing for one thing was too expensive and should have more slabs (say starting from something like 10$ a month). $120/month is a serious commitment, expecially on something which might not really take of also.

imho the new plan is extremely complex and there is really no reason why i would want a community to 'approve' of my new qna site. Just plain wrong at the roots wrong.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#93

Post by richardw »

All your (good) answers are belong to us.

Here's the deal: SE sites either work, or don't. When they don't, they bring in $129 until the owner gets bored. When they do work, SE loses all the extra revenue they could be making if they owned it. This way, they get every extra advertising cent. Basically 'we can make more if we keep all the money in-house'.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#95

Post by netcan »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #48
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.

That is true for any community site. Shouldn't disadvantage them in particular.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#96

Post by richardw »

spolsky wrote: post #73
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…

Sounds like you have a great business plan. In the meantime, I think that the Stack Overflow model has proven itself among nerds, and I think that your assertion that nerds are weird in some way and need completely different software than the rest of the world is not backed up by any evidence. I disagree that the software is irrelevant. Discussion groups that don't allow voting have no way to distinguish answers that…

No matter how good the software is, it's a short-term advantage. It gets you a ticket to the game but confers no sustainable advantage because the good bits will get copied. What matters is what you do on top of that software to build sustainable advantage.

(To be clear: I'm not referring to something like Windows here. SE is obviously complex but it isn't as complex as Windows. Much easier to copy and innovate around.)

I see it as a race now. You have to get that question and answer up before the other platforms do, to lock-in the Google advantage. You'll be leveraging your existing expert network in a sideways drift. Those experts already answer questions madly (and there are very few on the web) and now they have to battle to get their idea off the ground. Good plan. :)

You are missing out those snowflake sites (sorry Patrick) where the expert has zero SE cred but is the world expert on model trains just as model trains become the next bing thing. Still, over time you should have a reasonable monopoly on people who desire karma.

Unless someone comes up with a mechanism that can a) leverage karma whores better and b) discover and resolve hard topics faster.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#97

Post by netcan »

marbletiles wrote: post #81
spolsky wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you have different goals than us. You're trying to build communities... we're trying to make the Internet a better place to get expert answers.

Surely you have to build communities to do this, though? Your earlier answer mentioned how you needed voting so the "community" could choose best answers, you needed tags to keep sub-communities separate and so on. And one of the rating criteria for the new SE sites seems to be how much of a community they manage to create. If it is the case, I think this is the fundamental tension: You've built software geared to ra…

I'm siding with spolsky here. The ultimate goal you have in mind is defining. Since building a community is hard and is the hurdle that kills most attempts, people will often see it as the goal. In many cases, it might be the goal.

Take Wikipedia as an example. Community is necessary but it is not the goal. The goal is encyclopaedia making. Most online communities do not produce a wikipedia.

What this adds up to, in theory, is sacrificing some community building ability (more sites will dies from under participation)for more Q&A ability. While more of the remaining will produce a good archive of useful answers.

*This doesn't directly answer your original claim that the software is good for SO specifically but cannot be widely applied. But, if what I suggest is true, then you would expect it to appear that way.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#98

Post by netcan »

vaksel wrote: post #55
papachito wrote: post #34

Just so you know, I have an open source alternative to stackexchange and we do free hosting too http://shapado.com we also import stackexchange sites (beta).

i have one of the bigger stack exchange sites...and I'll be moving to Shapado if Stack Exchange kicks me off. I was already looking into them, since their rates were almost 3 times cheaper $50/1mm page views vs SEs $129/1mm pageviews. If you don't let the admins make money, there is no reason for them to bother building a community.

How would you make money from an SE site?

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#99

Post by netcan »

ck2 wrote: post #19

I see an impending problem with using a 3rd party service like stack exchange, not just for hosting but for operating the content you create. Just like there is voting to enable a site, they could just as easily take it away from you someday. It's like the few hosted forum services out there, or an even simplier model, wp.com blogs vs. a blog on your own vps. If it's important to you and you want control over quality…

Don't you see any advantage in lowering the bar for having a blog, forum or SE site?

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#100

Post by zackattack »

axod wrote: post #57
jawngee wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get over yourselves, have a laugh once in awhile. (Unless, of course, you are pro-Palin, but I'm assuming because you are able to type that you are not).

I have a really hard time believing anyone on HN is pro-Palin :/ That would just be bizarre.

I am admittedly pro-palindrome.
Post reply on HN