11–20 of 141 posts
let people log in with Twitter and Facebook, to make StackExchange reputations easily exportable to other platforms. StackOverflow should change absolutely nothing about their login process. It is perfect. I anonymously answered one question, and all of a sudden I have a profile. No confirmation e-mail, no Facebook or Twitter crap. Just use the site and bam! you're registered. It remembers me every time I come back a…
The point he is making is that stackoverflow is important because 1. It is useful at work 2. It is useful for getting work He dimisses the possibility that people asking questions about photography might not be photographers doing it for a living ( and a hodgepodge of sites focused on photography, mathematics, Apple, video games, board games, role-playing games, and science fiction. Interesting? Sure. Important? Hell…
Dumb question: I went to http://www.quora.com and it's asking me to sign up. I know that the actual questions and answers are publicly viewable but is there any obvious way to get to them from the home page?
Dumb question: I went to http://www.quora.com and it's asking me to sign up. I know that the actual questions and answers are publicly viewable but is there any obvious way to get to them from the home page?
Click one of the links down the bottom, the other pages have their infamous search/ask/etc input.
I'm giving my nod (for whatever that's worth) to the Stack* sites for putting questions right on the home page
I briefly liked Quora (partly because its the first site I've seen that serves up minified HTML). Now I find it boring, insular, and full of group think. Much like this article. And the valley. The concept that some non-valley site, that doesn't have all the cool kids behind it, might actually be successful is just not allowed within the techcrunch world-view.
As someone who goes to Stack Overflow regularly I see this situation all the time. It goes like this...
1. Person asks a question (e.g. "I need to build a service that will serve school districts in Los Angeles County. How do I go about doing that?")
2. Someone comes along and answers the question with something that seems right (e.g. "Here are a bunch of links on building REST services...")
3. That answer gets upvoted and the answerer gets his reputation boosted
4. Later someone comes along with the right answer (e.g. LA Unified requires all services to be WSDL discoverable so you need to look at SOAP"). But it's too late because the question's already scrolled into the abyss.
So the guy who gave the wrong answer gets a better reputation and the guy who got the right one gets nothing (and the person who asked the question likely took the upvoted answer and didn't check back so they waist untold hours on the wrong thing)
SO has one of the best UX on the web. I don't care if you call it Web 1.0, 2.0 or Blue Oranges 35, but don't clean it.
And also - "clean up by letting people log in with Twitter and Facebook"? How do you clean up by adding stuff?
The point he is making is that stackoverflow is important because 1. It is useful at work 2. It is useful for getting work He dimisses the possibility that people asking questions about photography might not be photographers doing it for a living ( and a hodgepodge of sites focused on photography, mathematics, Apple, video games, board games, role-playing games, and science fiction. Interesting? Sure. Important? Hell…
Mathoverflow is awesome. I don't know if the stack exchange guys run it (it certainly uses their software), but it is already professionally relevant for practicing mathematicians.
I never understood this 'There can be only one' attitude. I'm fine with thousands of these sites existing. There doesn't have to be 1 that's better than all the rest, and I don't have to spend every waking moment finding it, or making sure I'm already using it. Sites also don't have to be 'important' for them to matter to people.
My guess is that we're seeing the results of the tech blogger echo chamber. These self proclaimed experts need methods to legitimize their existence and quantify their awesomeness. What better way than a big fat number on the one end-all-be-all site? See also: Scoble was biggest contributor on Quora. Of course, it's all ridiculous (for now). Most people in the real world have better things to do than troll around on…
Someone can be clever and knowledgeable, and still be a poor employee or co-founder. (And, my least productive times are often when I'm most interested in what's happening on reddit/HN/etc.)