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

The downfall of Quora (2013)

thegoodones.quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#41

Post by aroch »

pinaceae wrote: post #37
aroch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't `mansplaining` just because a man is writing something. I also wasn't aware that writing source-backed articles for an encyclopedia is actually a secret plan by men to oppress women. If you're of the opinion that any time men write or speak on a subject that they're `mansplaining`, perhaps you should reevaluate your world view.

this is not about oppressing women, wtf. this is about sites using the natural trait of men, especially the nerdy types, to get immense joy of being right. not being able to have something stand uncorrected. and to assume all others are idiots and uninformed. which is where the gender angle comes into play, imho by accident. you don't need to pay them, they'll do all the work, just let them be right, publicly.

...You used the word `mansplain` which is a loaded word that refers to men patronizing women and is closely tied to patriarchy theory.

It's also quite sexist to assume that men are editing Wikipedia so they can "get some" and show off to women. God forbid someone wants to write about things they find interesting or want to be part of and give back to a community.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#42

Post by dozenal »

junto wrote: post #35

Quota. ?share=whatever That to me sums up the site in its entirety. A content SEO Google cheater that tries to con people into signing up to boost its user numbers They should have looked to StackOverflow as a good example of how you build a proper community, and more importantly, nurture it. Good ridance.

Stackoverflow has of a lot of terrible answers that get voted up by people who aren't equipped to evaluate them properly, and closed threads when anyone starts actual substantive discussions. It also suffers from lack of decent rewards for contribution. That's not what I would consider a good community.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#43

Post by kelukelugames »

aroch wrote: post #31
pinaceae wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is that sexism - look at the stats behind who edits wikipedia, who posts here or at quora. prove me wrong, with science. it is the opposite of sexism - it is an uncomfortable truth.

It isn't `mansplaining` just because a man is writing something. I also wasn't aware that writing source-backed articles for an encyclopedia is actually a secret plan by men to oppress women. If you're of the opinion that any time men write or speak on a subject that they're `mansplaining`, perhaps you should reevaluate your world view.

> this is about sites using the natural trait of men, especially the nerdy types, to get immense joy of being right.

I believe this trait is true, but the word mansplaining is loaded and few people agrees with your use of it.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#44

Post by jbinto »

I mentally blacklisted Quora when it was proudly US only (I'm Canadian). Their reasoning was extremely dubious: something about "cultural differences" and "language barriers" preventing "high quality content".

Foolishly, I gave them another chance when they opened registration worldwide. The second strike was when I found out that they showed the Googlebot different content, à la Experts Exchange.

And the third strike was the heavy handed social integration. Can't post (or even read content) unless you link with Facebook, etc.

It's a shame. As others have noted here I think the web could use an improved version of "Yahoo Answers"; something with a StackOverflow feel. Especially since Google Answers (the one you paid bounties for) went the way of the dodo in 2006.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#45

Post by rustyconover »

leovan wrote: post #29
rustyconover wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A reputation based economy is what we're moving towards", we should be resistant to that. I think it would be fair to say a "reputation based economy" is a synonym for crony capitalism -- I'll only do business with you if I know you. This is a socially unfair economy at best, and at worst will generate inequality as social cliques will continue to preserve and enrich themselves and "the people they know". If we're g…

this is an intriguing criticism but assumes a corrupted reputation economy. wouldn't a perfect meritocracy be a reputation based economy?

A meritocracy is a type of government not an economy. Or possibly I don't understand your question.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#46

Post by tptacek »

This piece starts out teasing some kind of business or market analysis about Quora, which would be interesting to read, but it almost immediately descends completely and permanently into Drama, some of which seems like it's only really intelligible to people who spend a lot of time on Quora.

It's not a worthwhile read, and we'd be better off discussing Quora based on virtually any other story about it.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#47

Post by junto »

dozenal wrote: post #42
junto wrote: post #35

Quota. ?share=whatever That to me sums up the site in its entirety. A content SEO Google cheater that tries to con people into signing up to boost its user numbers They should have looked to StackOverflow as a good example of how you build a proper community, and more importantly, nurture it. Good ridance.

Stackoverflow has of a lot of terrible answers that get voted up by people who aren't equipped to evaluate them properly, and closed threads when anyone starts actual substantive discussions. It also suffers from lack of decent rewards for contribution. That's not what I would consider a good community.

Whilst StackOverflow also has its failings, it isn't deliberately obstructive.

It isn't the perfect model but it is certainly a better one.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#48

Post by lauraura »

pinaceae wrote: post #6
tokenadult wrote: post #3

From the article kindly submitted here: "Quora's philosophy can be summed up as why should the serfs get a share if they were dumb enough to work for free in the first place?" That's a good question. What is the incentive to be a content creator on Quora? AFTER EDIT: Aside about the other comments wondering if Hacker News has a no-humor rule. I find comments from time to time on Hacker News that are laugh-out-loud fu…

ego. just like wikipedia it runs on the precious recource called 'mansplaining'. men really like to show off. just like this comment.

Mansplaining is much more specific than men showing off; it's men assuming women are clueless and talking over them (e.g. the prototypical case where a man explained a woman's book to her, oblivious that she wrote it).

Which I don't think is the issue here at all...

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#49

Post by aroch »

kelukelugames wrote: post #43
aroch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't `mansplaining` just because a man is writing something. I also wasn't aware that writing source-backed articles for an encyclopedia is actually a secret plan by men to oppress women. If you're of the opinion that any time men write or speak on a subject that they're `mansplaining`, perhaps you should reevaluate your world view.

> this is about sites using the natural trait of men, especially the nerdy types, to get immense joy of being right. I believe this trait is true, but the word mansplaining is loaded and few people agrees with your use of it.

Given the number of women on Tumblr who will happily shout down others just to be right (as far as they're concerned with "right'), I don't think this is a trait specific to men. All people like being smart and like being able to show that.

Re: The downfall of Quora (2013)

#50

Post by Turing_Machine »

dozenal wrote: post #42
junto wrote: post #35

Quota. ?share=whatever That to me sums up the site in its entirety. A content SEO Google cheater that tries to con people into signing up to boost its user numbers They should have looked to StackOverflow as a good example of how you build a proper community, and more importantly, nurture it. Good ridance.

Stackoverflow has of a lot of terrible answers that get voted up by people who aren't equipped to evaluate them properly, and closed threads when anyone starts actual substantive discussions. It also suffers from lack of decent rewards for contribution. That's not what I would consider a good community.

Stack Overflow could be better net citizens if they'd stop polluting Google's search results with closed discussions.

They're welcome to set whatever rules they want for what's "on topic" or a "good fit". Their site, their rules. No harm, no foul.

It's just irritating as hell to waste your time clicking over there from a Google link and finding a closed discussion at the other end.

Telling Google to not index a topic would be a minor tweak. If they've found the discussion unworthy, why do they want Google to index it anyway?

Post reply on HN