Live data from Hacker News

Stack Exchange 2.0

blog.stackexchange.com

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#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 other b) How to put this? A whole lot of nerds really would like to be able to reduce the complexity of human relationships to math, too, and willingly participated.

But without a userbase that's dying for a solution, any solution, and especially a userbase prepared to put up with convoluted ranking-rating-have-I-got-enough-points-to-change-my-profile-picture-yet point-scoring games the software is actually a millstone. You're not going to get a liberal arts Q&A site that takes off with those restrictions. This is why StackExchange was such a dud.

By not realising this, their solution is more of the same! "Sure, you can start a site, you just need pi+4 users to seed your initial contract bounding, then that will need to be ranked to 6 by a quorum of level 3 users, and after an initial 26-day period of zzzzzzzzzz ".

You want to create a good Q&A site, you need to have a community, and it needs to be well-tended by empathic people who know how and where to prune. The software is pretty much irrelevant. Look at http://ask.metafilter.com/ for a success story: totally flat, forum-esque, but answers are obvious, there's no chatter or bullshit, and it works on the most amorphous and wide-ranging types of questions.

There is no shortcut solution to this problem. There is no way to mathematically manage human connections like this that works in this space. The route to success is careful relationship management, not yet more programming.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#22
post #11

The success of StackOverflow was built on the backs of smart programmers who don't say anything unless they have something good to say. I've been to a few of the other StackExchange sites and the communities were not the same. Mostly the blind leading the blind. StackExchange 2.0 is a weak attempt at still trying to replicate the unreplicateable (I know this is probably not a word). It will fail because few of these…

Huh? They built StackOverflow too. From zero. Are you saying there aren't other communities of with good S/N ratios, or that SX2.0 won't be able to find them?

I forgot to add the word "community".

It should read: "The success of the StackOverflow community was built on the backs of smart programmers...

And yes, SX2.0 will have a hard time building the critical mass around anything other than programming.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#25
This sounds immensely complicated, maybe they should have worked out a better way for selling the software. Making it free and having this stupendously complex proposal system seems kinda short-sighted.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#27
post #16
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…

Sounds like a design by committee

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#29
I don't understand all the naysaying on here. I think this new plan has a pretty good chance of growing the business well.

Mind you, I'm a bit unclear exactly what the sources of revenue are. I'm sure very targeted advertising would be one revenue stream.

Re: Stack Exchange 2.0

#30
post #16
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…

Imagine wanting a blog and WordPress or Tumblr thought you undeserving of a top-level domain.

And just look at how many crap blogs are on each of those platforms. Their goal is to curate quality content and the free-reign model has already proven itself to be incapable of it.

Post reply on HN