Stack Overflow: home of bullies, assholes and trolls.
Stack Overflow for Teams
51–60 of 163 posts
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#52Atlassian's "Questions for Confluence" is only half the price. https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/questions
It's only "half the price" if you ignore the cost of Confluence itself. The Atlassian people are also historically awful at building out features that make hosting their products easier (for example, they've ignored a request for a "read only" mode for about 12 years now [1]).
The simple fact that it is a product that is made by someone other than Atlassian is a huge selling point.
[1] https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFSERVER-6390?page=com.a...
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#53Atlassian's "Questions for Confluence" is only half the price. https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/questions
I'd rather not learn a 9th Atlassian specific markup language. I find JIRA and Confluence to be uncomfortably slow, even on high end hardware. I recall SO took a "scale up" approach but hopefully they can do better.
I 100% agree on the speed here. I thought it was just my inability to self host Atlassian products. I tried Atlassian OnDemand and the performance was actually worse compared to self hosting.
I legitimately don’t know if I’m just bad a “tuning” their stuff, but JIRA and Confluence in particular were nothing short of miserable to use daily. Bamboo was great, but it had a lot less daily interaction than JIRA, for obvious reasons.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#54There's nothing like writing up an Evernote or Wiki article on some feature, process, or how/why something works... and then nobody on the team ever reading.
I love writing documentation from time to time. But this helps by getting you to write documentation for only things people are asking about.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
A forum is nearly there. With open source, all you need is a third party plugin to turn it into what you want: https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-solved-accepted-answe...
That plugin hardly turns Discourse into a full fledged Q&A site. It merely adds a button to mark a specific post as "The Answer". While that may be sufficient for many, there is a reason that StackOverflow has tags, tailored search, reputation, closing, etc. That's what they are selling with that $5 price tag.
Discourse has tags, tailored search, badges, closing, and with this you can mark the right answer.
But you can’t have voting up and cute Q&A related badges, true. And reputation is also tricky.
But for many people, being able to own their own database for free will trump those things.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#56There's nothing like writing up an Evernote or Wiki article on some feature, process, or how/why something works... and then nobody on the team ever reading. I love writing documentation from time to time. But this helps by getting you to write documentation for only things people are asking about.
I think the win would be in making the answers more findable. Confluence is great for writing documents and laying out pages in a hierarchy, but full-text search is still very hit and miss. Especially when you have 50 projects that all have the same keywords and 49 of them are irrelevant.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#57So the biggest reason why I can see this succeeding is because of onboarding. In fact, I'd say that's the killer feature. It takes one person going through a development environment setup process to be really useful. They'll ask a lot of questions, get the answers...and then the setup process is suddenly really well documented without anyone having to go through the trouble of documenting it without knowing what to document.
Since new employees are expected to ask questions on how to get things working, using SO for Teams is natural. Then, explanations that would normally be sent in pieces over IM can be recorded.
The information still ages, but aged information on the right track is infinitely better than nothing at all.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
A forum is nearly there. With open source, all you need is a third party plugin to turn it into what you want: https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-solved-accepted-answe...
That plugin hardly turns Discourse into a full fledged Q&A site. It merely adds a button to mark a specific post as "The Answer". While that may be sufficient for many, there is a reason that StackOverflow has tags, tailored search, reputation, closing, etc. That's what they are selling with that $5 price tag.
It's funny you refute that forum add-on, as it is a good add-on, but it's also just an add-on. A band-aid, not a solution. Too often I see the selected answer "pulled up" to the top, but it's actually just the tail-end of a longer conversation, where the context of the conversation is critical to understanding the answer itself. Not to mention that comment responses (to both answers and the question itself) are interwoven together like a big bowl of spaghetti.
Meanwhile, I think StackOverflow, while great, is not living up to it's potential. I'm currently brainstorming/prototyping a StackOverflow alternative that covers the Q&A scenario, but adds support for more advanced features. If a question is opinion based, then you could have answers categorized into sides. Yes or No would be a common example. React vs VueJS vs Ember could be some side options in a question. OOP vs FP vs Procedural could be sides for another question. What is the right way to X can have a different answer depending on your "side", or it could be that the sides themselves are in disagreement. Sometimes it's nice to see and understand why another side prefers X. Let both side's top answers stand side by side at the top. Another idea is improved connecting of similar, but unmergable, questions. Another idea to connect questions by dependencies. A user could select some premises before asking, debates could be derailed less often by linking debunked arguements to their open debate page where there could be a large chain of custody on each element and nested prerequisite showing why it's wrong. Prerequisite could also be a word definition ("theory" is a random shower thought in some contexts, but in other contexts it's an explanation backed by so much evidence it's a strong candidate for established fact that could only be replaced by an expanded explaination, not an alternative one). Prerequisites could also be an axiom. In addition to questions, there could also be "claims". "Answers" to claims would basically be supporting evidence or refuting evidence.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#59There's nothing like writing up an Evernote or Wiki article on some feature, process, or how/why something works... and then nobody on the team ever reading. I love writing documentation from time to time. But this helps by getting you to write documentation for only things people are asking about.
Even if they read, it gets old really fast usually and who have to update it? You. So now you have two problems :)
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, Stack Overflow for Teams isn't a wiki.
Its creator would disagree with you. [1] [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2008/12/28/stack-overflow-is-...
Stack overflow was originally more like a wiki, with everything editable. Over time things got more immutable and marking questions as "community wiki" by default started being discouraged.