Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20% • Hacker News Board

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#191

Post by dep_b » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 4:33 PM UTC

chrisan wrote: post #170

StevePerkins wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a humblebrag... but I think he's TRYING to say that meaningful StackOverflow activity seems to have stagnated in recent years, and he hopes to see an uptick.

It could also be the "normal" stuff has been asked many times over and he might be into a very niche/obscure topic. I have a question that I was my own answer on. It was pretty obscure (pageant/cygwin specific) and when I finally found the answer I cited the 2 sources I used hoping it would save others time in the future with an easier google than what I went through

Right. Can't count the hours stack overflow saved for me although I'm disappointed by the lack of response.

The most popular answers and questions tend to be new things in popular SDK's. The unanswered things are deeper problems in existing API's. You either get an answer in a very short term by multiple people or nothing at all.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#192

Post by pas » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 4:42 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #174

danbruc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the barriers are even higher for layoffs. You can not, for example, arbitrarily pick which workers to layoff but have to minimize the social impact when you have to choose between several employees doing the same work, for example take age, spousal support, and things like that into consideration. But I am totally not an expert and I am sure it is a vastly more complex topic than I can imagine.

This seems backwards to me. Because my spouse has a better job than Mike's, I'm more likely to get laid off? Because I'm younger than Bill and can theoretically make up the financial impact sooner I'm more likely to get laid off? If there are ten employees you need to cut, shouldn't they be cut based on either their recent performance, or a completely random method?

In a hard time it tries to do the thing with the less overall impact.

Maybe it's putting lipstick on a pig, maybe it's fairness.

Layoffs (mass dismissal) are very hard, because usually it means the whole region has economic problems, and those that get laid off are especially vulnerable - because they almost by definition work in a sort of dying industry/trade.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#193

Post by ProAm » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 4:58 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #128

ProAm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's start up life, iterating off VC money. Fail fast also means fire fast.

Is it even possible to call Stack Exchange a startup anymore?

It definitely is, they dont have a solid monetization plan, consistently pivot/iterate product ideas and take quite a bit of VC money. It's something that has gone from MVP and is trying to transform into a real business.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#194

Post by gaius » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #174

danbruc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know the barriers are even higher for layoffs. You can not, for example, arbitrarily pick which workers to layoff but have to minimize the social impact when you have to choose between several employees doing the same work, for example take age, spousal support, and things like that into consideration. But I am totally not an expert and I am sure it is a vastly more complex topic than I can imagine.

This seems backwards to me. Because my spouse has a better job than Mike's, I'm more likely to get laid off? Because I'm younger than Bill and can theoretically make up the financial impact sooner I'm more likely to get laid off? If there are ten employees you need to cut, shouldn't they be cut based on either their recent performance, or a completely random method?

If there are ten employees you need to cut, shouldn't they be cut based on either their recent performance

No, because layoffs are position-based. If it's a performance related cull then that's not the same as redundancies. If you want to get rid of people like that then you need ironclad documentation and/or to provide generous packages.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#195

Post by buzzcut » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

legostormtroopr wrote: post #126

Good. In the past year they have become very preachy about exact which political opinions the tech community is allowed to have, and how they are to express them. My limit was the "Time to take a stand incident" when Joel effectively dictated that the developer community of StackOverflow must agree with the statement. > Carving up the world into ... nations ... is both morally repugnant and frankly stupid The follow…

Whatever your political views, the ellipses in the quote are deeply misleading, and in fact make his quote seem to say something Joel emphatically did not say.

Here is the full quote:

>It’s impossible not to see the parallel: the only way to build a successful world today is to allow the contributions of everyone. Carving up the world into us vs. them, building walls, and demonizing religions, nations, and refugees is both morally repugnant and counterproductive, and it goes so much against the spirit of Stack Overflow that as a community we must speak out.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#196

Post by fjsolwmv » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 8:32 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #164

danbruc wrote: post #15

Why would you fire people on such a short notice? No need to hand over things? No interest in providing at least some time to look for a new job? EDIT: To clarify that a bit, I am interested in what the upsides are except for possibly saving some money. An orderly shutdown usually seems preferable to me over quickly killing the process, for both sides.

No need to hand over things? Correct. Remember ROLES are made redundant, not people. If the role no longer exists then by definition there's nothing to handover. If there is a handover then there better also be a big chunk of cash to the departing worker in return for waiving the right to sue, because if there isn't, it's tribunal time.

That's a very simplistic view of the way work is distributed in a small company .

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#197

Post by fjsolwmv » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 8:35 PM UTC

ProAm wrote: post #193

colejohnson66 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it even possible to call Stack Exchange a startup anymore?

It definitely is, they dont have a solid monetization plan, consistently pivot/iterate product ideas and take quite a bit of VC money. It's something that has gone from MVP and is trying to transform into a real business.

Sometimes you just Robin Hood your VCs to build something wonderful to give to the world.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#198

Post by fjsolwmv » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 8:38 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #78

RyanZAG wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of SO's operations are something I would not like to fund. I'd be happy to donate for their core service, but that's really only 10% or less of their headcount. Who funds the other 90% and why would they want to? SO is too big to go for a Wikipedia style model unless they strip off just the core SO part and relevant engineers and make only that part donation based. And I'd guess the other 90% would end up in lay…

Keep in mind that the Wikimedia Foundation also spends about 85% of the money they raise on things other than operational costs [1] (servers + engineering). [1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A2014...

Plus another 20% for product development, and some other fuzzy categories like outreach

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#199

Post by fjsolwmv » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 8:39 PM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #71

Xylakant wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about ads is that you don’t need to click on them to work. You can’t click on billboards or newspaper ads either. Keep the product in mind is already most of what you want to achieve.

From a monetary aspect, impressions are basically worthless. You need clicks to make any money.

That's true for generic keyword/retargeting ads, not premium placements.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#200

Post by gaius » Fri, Nov 03, 2017, 8:43 PM UTC

fjsolwmv wrote: post #196

gaius wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to hand over things? Correct. Remember ROLES are made redundant, not people. If the role no longer exists then by definition there's nothing to handover. If there is a handover then there better also be a big chunk of cash to the departing worker in return for waiving the right to sue, because if there isn't, it's tribunal time.

That's a very simplistic view of the way work is distributed in a small company .

That would be for a tribunal to decide. But at the point that your employment is terminated, why would you do it?