Live data from Hacker News

Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

twitter.com

81–90 of 209 posts

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#81
post #57

It's undeniable that their main developer Q&A site is a really great thing that saved me many hours of work. However, it was somewhat hostile to its more export users from the very beginning: the reputation system favors quickfire replies to grab the first upvotes, and they seem to put a strong emphasis on "cookbook" answers where many of the more nuanced discussions were closed as "opinion based". I think there are…

>many of the more nuanced discussions were closed as "opinion based"

This is also something I don't like, but I wonder if they went on, if the website would become another place for flamewars - something that happens a LOT when you have low moderation.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#82
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of a company giving advanced notice of layoffs. Its always just an email the morning of.

Usually you will get at least a 4 week notice in Germany and this increases to up to 7 months when you worked for more than 20 years for the company. That you get fired effective immediately usually only happen if you really fucked something up.

It's the norm in the US, I've never head of anyone getting advanced noticed of termination.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#83

I remember reaching out to them a bunch of years ago (2012 or so) in order to ask them to host a stack overflow sub-site for our product (from a sizeable company). We were willing to pay quite a lot (because they had the premier UX for this kind of thing), but they weren't at all interested. They just told us to try to grow things "organically", because they had decided to focus 100% on open stuff. We weren't really…

see Get Satisfaction, actually a little older than stackoverflow

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#84

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.

I haven’t advertised on SO, but the copy text on their advertising page doesn’t sound like they’re selling slots on a CTR basis. They seem to be well aware that clicks will be rare and are upfront about that. https://www.stackoverflowbusiness.com/advertise

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#85
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, they offer this now, your private instance for your own product(s) & team(s): https://www.stackoverflowbusiness.com/enterprise Edit: while interesting, this (private internal instance for your team) is not what johansch is after (separate public instance dedicated to your product, for your users)

(Edit) This appears to be for non-public stuff only, though. So an internal stackoverflow. Still no solution for a company wanting to host a public stackoverflow instance for some product.

Ah, yes, right, sorry. I understand now what you were after. Agree there would have been (is?) an interesting potential there too.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#86
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you give notice? Leaving people dangling for weeks while you figure out who will be cut is worse than making the decision, telling them it's effective immediately and giving a fair severance package so they can immediately start looking.

You decide who needs to get cut and notify only those people. Then they have a few weeks to search for a new job and get their things in order.

Yes, but you forget "water cooler talk". Having worked at a large hedge fund that went through a massive layoff after a sub par year (we still made 10%) that resulted in 2/3s of all IT employees, roughly 600 people, being terminated. The announcement was made over email. First, all consultants/contractors were immediately shown the door. Those we wanted to keep were converted to salaried employees. This was the week before Thanksgiving in the US. Volunteers to be laid off from employees were asked for the Monday before Thanksgiving. Long of it was morale tanked. I informally asked my director to be let go and was told not to formally ask for it as they weren't going to cut me and it wouldn't look good in my official record. I saw a lot of friends and great developers walked out the door. The layoff was bad enough in of itself, but watching it dragged out over a few weeks was brutal.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure they make TONS of money from ad revenue. Probably they tried to generate other revenue streams but it just didn't work out and hence the layoff. Here's a crazy idea: what if Stackoverflow developed a search engine for developers? Usually I get to Stackoverflow posts through Google but perhaps Stackoverflow can provide a better experience by doing code specific web crawling.

Inherent conflict here - programmers don't click on ads, fullstop. I can't imagine a group I'd want to advertise to less.

Clicks are not the only use of ads, and not always the point. They are easy to measure and so everybody tracks them, but it isn't the point. The point is to get people to buy.

Now it is understood that when I click on an ad for a widget and buy the widget it is easy to tell. However if I see an ad for a widget, and next week buy that widget the ad probably worked even though it is muck harder find a cause/effect relationship.

Thus we need to keep reminding people that clicks are rarely the point of ads. The point is the sale. Radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, park benches, bill boards (and many more) all have advertisements. The people who place those ads believe they drive sales long term - and they have statistical data to back that up. All of that data came without a single click.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#88
post #43
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.

Depends on country too. In EU our work laws regulate how your employee may be laid off. My country (poland) says that employee has to be notified about termination: - week ahead if he or she was employed for less than month - month ahead if he or she was employed for less than three years - three months ahead if he or she was employed for more than three years This goes both ways however, as employee has to notify hi…

Same in France and the majority of EU countries.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#89
post #56
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually you will get at least a 4 week notice in Germany and this increases to up to 7 months when you worked for more than 20 years for the company. That you get fired effective immediately usually only happen if you really fucked something up.

"Layoff" and "firing" are separate concepts here. The central example of a true layoff is a trade work shortage: the layoff happens with very little notice, because it reflects the volatile nature of the demand for the trade. If there's suddenly, unexpectedly nothing for anyone to do, then there's suddenly, unexpectedly no benefit in paying anyone to come in for the day to do it. Does that kind of situation still con…

Traditionally, large scale layoffs are hard and avoided, especially in industries where unions are strong. If required they are usually negotiated with the union. Still, there are often ways to avoid a layoff. The union sometimes agrees on a temporary pay cut across the board. There are some legal instruments that help a company in a crisis, Kurzarbeit is one of the most german one: The company can under some circumstances cut work time (and salaries) for a specified group of employees and the state will cover for a certain percentage of the wage loss. This allows the company to retain staff in an unexpected slow in business and be ready and fully staffed when orders start rolling in. In effect a giant insurance pool.

Re: Stack Overflow reducing headcount by 20%

#90

It's been interesting watching SO try to monetize. I wonder: How would people feel if they went the Wikipedia way? It's obviously a very beneficial site, but not as widely applicable as Wikipedia. I personally prefer the Wikipedia model of being ad-free and having no additional product and doing a fundraising drive every so often. PBS as well. That said, I certainly think given the audience of SO that there are sever…

I remember seeing an article here these past few weeks talking about the business model of Wikipedia and how it's supposedly inherently flawed. Wikipedia doesn't bring in a lot of cash, but it rather sets a sad tone for itself how unfortunate that may seem. Personally I'd be more interested in seeing StackOverflow branch out. What have they done these past few years? It seems like StackOverflow has remained stagnant,…

They've done a lot, but apparently it hasn't been particularly successful. Their new "Documentation" platform didn't really ever gain traction: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/354217/sunsetting-d...
Post reply on HN