At least the frequency of questions getting closed without any sane reason will be lesser than Stackoverflow.com
Stack Overflow for Teams
71–80 of 163 posts
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#72Seems like "yet another tool to try to offset the problem of requirements, code, and architectural decisions not being adequately documented for future staff to understand." Sometimes I wonder if software teams should add technical writers embed with developers, architects, QA, and BA assets to actually document All The Things and keep documentation up to date. Yes, that will mean re-writing documentations as people…
Pushing the need for clear documentation is a battle I find myself frequently fighting. Many devs just aren't sure how to prioritize it or write it, and even worse, many seem to have absorbed the idea that code should be self documenting and that comments are a code smell.
Whoever is responsible for the idea that comments are code smell deserves to receive all future vitriolic emails from anyone who ever stumbles into a complex nest of undocumented code and has to figure out what the hell they're looking at.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#73There'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.
"Documentation on-demand" seems a great solution indeed!
Although $5/month per user is not cheap. I work at a medium-sized funded startup and I doubt it would be approved for overall use (as it would be nice to include other teams as well, like Marketing, Analytics, Customer Support).
It is the same price of GSuite, that adds a ton more value than SO for Teams could ever add.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#74There'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.
SO is bad with search, entirely giving it away for Google to find relevant answers. In a wiki, at least I can follow the structure to find relevant pages, but in the heap of badly phrased questions it will be a pain to find anything relevant. I love writing documentation too, but from years participating on Stack Overflow I found it most unreliable for the purpose. As I once quipped, "Imagine Wikipedia where there ar…
Search is something that (with the advent of Teams) we've been bolstering our investment in. We've updated to the most recent version of elastic (which unblocks us on a lot of improvements) and we have upgraded how we are indexing questions/answers for Teams. and most importantly, we will just be continuing to improve it - since now it's more critical than ever to be successful there. To your point though, it's the first time we've invested in search in...well, I don't know how long.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 inter…
What is a way to reach you? I thought of making a site like this called https://findmeaning.in And basically it would consist of claims and evidence linking to other claims — and automatically calculating scores based on votes for claims. The hardest problem would be to prevent sybil attacks, collusion and so on, that could compromise the voting system. Perhaps the score system would need to be based on something ent…
[deleted]
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was an open source version of Stack Overflow that I set up internally a few years ago at a previous company. I was the only one on the team who actively used it, but even then I found it useful as it was a place to squirrel away these useful little pieces of information you come across and don't know quite what to do with. I ended up coming back to find stuff I'd put there a few times and was starting to refer…
What tool did you use, and would you recommend it? I'm considering that route for project-relevant questions my students have.
I believe it was this:
But not positive. I vaguely remember it was a Python product. Not sure I can recommend it. I remember it not being nearly as polished as SO and not sure it's being actively maintained.
It's a shame that you can't use Stack Overflow itself constructively for this. I think Stack Overflow usage would be a great lesson for any introductory class. Just teaching new devs how to write a good Stack Overflow question is an invaluable step in problem-solving, even if they never post it.
Unfortunately, at the moment, I fear a good part of that lesson would be "the talk" about navigating the tricky culture of Stack Overflow.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#77There'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.
"Documentation on-demand" seems a great solution indeed! Although $5/month per user is not cheap. I work at a medium-sized funded startup and I doubt it would be approved for overall use (as it would be nice to include other teams as well, like Marketing, Analytics, Customer Support). It is the same price of GSuite, that adds a ton more value than SO for Teams could ever add.
SO dev here. Not sure your size, but your first 10 users are much cheaper. On signup, it starts at $10/month and includes the first 10 users. It's $5/user/mo after that.
If you're much larger than 10 - creeping into the 200+ people, it might be better to go with Enterprise: https://stackoverflow.com/enterprise
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#78There'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.
This is where the rule of threes is useful for me. The third time I find myself answering the same question for someone, I'll make sure it get put in the wiki. Then next time I get asked, I just give the asker the URL.
Saves time and breath. Also serves as a mini-tutorial on the utility of the wiki.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#79There'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.
"Documentation on-demand" seems a great solution indeed! Although $5/month per user is not cheap. I work at a medium-sized funded startup and I doubt it would be approved for overall use (as it would be nice to include other teams as well, like Marketing, Analytics, Customer Support). It is the same price of GSuite, that adds a ton more value than SO for Teams could ever add.
I just figured this out, but that's $5/month for _active_ users. So if you don't use it, you don't pay for it. Not exactly sure what counts as an "active" user though.
Re: Stack Overflow for Teams
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
SO is bad with search, entirely giving it away for Google to find relevant answers. In a wiki, at least I can follow the structure to find relevant pages, but in the heap of badly phrased questions it will be a pain to find anything relevant. I love writing documentation too, but from years participating on Stack Overflow I found it most unreliable for the purpose. As I once quipped, "Imagine Wikipedia where there ar…
Search is something that (with the advent of Teams) we've been bolstering our investment in. We've updated to the most recent version of elastic (which unblocks us on a lot of improvements) and we have upgraded how we are indexing questions/answers for Teams. and most importantly, we will just be continuing to improve it - since now it's more critical than ever to be successful there. To your point though, it's the f…
Stack Overflow has very small experience with reusing the knowledge, aimed primarily at providing fast on-site answers, for questions too localized for reuse. I have doubts in its ability to provide a solid documentation base, given a flop it made of Documentation project. Wikipedia is a way better source of reusable knowledge than Stack Overflow, and for a reason.