71–80 of 103 posts
And why would I put myself through this when I can setup one of the many stack overflow clones on a VPS right now?
Because the stack overflow clones aren't exactly finished http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2267/stack-overflow-...
I'm surprised at the negative reactions here. I thought it sounded brilliant, honestly, and I look forward to seeing more sites blossom.
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 othe…
I disagree that the software is irrelevant. Discussion groups that don't allow voting have no way to distinguish answers that the community thinks are good from answers that the community thinks are bad. Discussion groups that don't allow editing have no way to change answers as the world changes, so wrong answers stick around. Discussion groups without tags are forced to splinter communities into smaller and smaller fragments because they have no way of dealing with overlapping communities. Discussion groups without reputation systems are overrun with spam.
I can't think of anything I disagree with MORE than the concept that "the software is irrelevant." The software DEFINES how the community works with each other and is absolutely critical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I consider Jason a friend ( http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/podcast-56/ ), a very smart guy, and a great entrepreneur, although I have a different philosophy than he does on how to build a Q&A site.
So then, do you think that Mahalo has a bum rap? Because the rep they have here is pretty close to "Google spammer".
There are a lot of companies built on the business model of making low-cost, low-quality pages for long-tail Google search results, either algorithmically or with low-paid humans. There's clearly an arbitrage opportunity there, providing some kind of semi-crappy web page on a topic so narrow that there isn't anything on the web yet, but low quality content doesn't interest me at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hardly any SE sites have a community worth paying for, which is kind of the whole point
Well there's plenty of sites owners (with credit cards) that might assume otherwise. It depends on the target audience, but if it was for say doctors or lawyers 1/10th the traffic or even 1/100th the traffic of a typical programming site would be a success. Maybe they did a survey among all the sites to come to your conclusion, but it seems odd they never tried go paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hardly any SE sites have a community worth paying for, which is kind of the whole point
Well there's plenty of sites owners (with credit cards) that might assume otherwise. It depends on the target audience, but if it was for say doctors or lawyers 1/10th the traffic or even 1/100th the traffic of a typical programming site would be a success. Maybe they did a survey among all the sites to come to your conclusion, but it seems odd they never tried go paid.
The main problem was that there was no way of charging the people who asked questions - who were the only ones likely to want to pay.
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…
A Q&A site is not a piece of legistlation; it's an entreneurial endeavour.
It's best to leave entrepreneurs to be free to create, experiment and adapt.
Stackexhange will miss out on some great sites by rejecting them before they even get a start. The best sites will be those where the founder/s constantly adapt the site to demands of the community, not those who have the best idea upfront.
But as you say, that's where the OSS optios come in. :)
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 othe…
Sounds like you have a great business plan. In the meantime, I think that the Stack Overflow model has proven itself among nerds, and I think that your assertion that nerds are weird in some way and need completely different software than the rest of the world is not backed up by any evidence. I disagree that the software is irrelevant. Discussion groups that don't allow voting have no way to distinguish answers that…
Nor did I say the software per se was irrelevant: I agree it's vastly important to how a community interacts. But when it comes to community building it's beside the point: phpBB is very bad software for discussion, yes, but some excellent communities have formed nonetheless.
Good software facilitates communication and -- crucially -- it enables readers to use their established social skills. It stays out of the way, in other words. Metafilter, for example, has none of your "requirements" apart from a basic tagging system, but avoids every one the problems you think will result -- and it does it from nothing more than good relationship management and community stewardship.
By trying to automate away (or disperse to the "crowd") the hard work of that relationship management, StackOverflow has boxed itself into a niche where only nerds-with-a-need could bear to live. The rest will turn away and keep on searching, as the experience of StackExchange has shown.
[edit: first attempt made no sense!]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like you have a great business plan. In the meantime, I think that the Stack Overflow model has proven itself among nerds, and I think that your assertion that nerds are weird in some way and need completely different software than the rest of the world is not backed up by any evidence. I disagree that the software is irrelevant. Discussion groups that don't allow voting have no way to distinguish answers that…
I didn't say that nerds need completely different software: I implied that nerds were the only people who would put up with SO-style numbers games, because their need was so great and they can grok the system. Nor did I say the software per se was irrelevant: I agree it's vastly important to how a community interacts. But when it comes to community building it's beside the point: phpBB is very bad software for discus…