let people log in with Twitter and Facebook, to make StackExchange reputations easily exportable to other platforms.
StackOverflow should change absolutely nothing about their login process. It is perfect. I anonymously answered one question, and all of a sudden I have a profile. No confirmation e-mail, no Facebook or Twitter crap. Just use the site and bam! you're registered. It remembers me every time I come back and it makes absolutely no fucking attempt to worm its way into my social graph.
Just be careful with your account in that state. Stackoverflow only knows your account by a cookie right now. You can't log into it from another machine or if you happen to clear your cookies you won't be able to log back in.
So it is in your best interest to "solidify" your membership if you care about your account.
well, as long as you provide a valid email (we don't check) you can do an account recovery to reinstate your cookie via email. The main limitation of being unregistered is that you can't ever vote on anything -- but you DO accrue other non-voting privileges through reputation like regular users.
SO probably doesn't want too many unregistered users floating around. Also, one of success metrics for an Q&A site is the number of registered users. So, it does make sense to force users to go through almost painless process of registering before they really start engaging in the site.
I have a post I made before I registered my account. How do I tie that post into my existing account now, or can I only "import" old posts during registration? That's a disappointment. :/
I can see why a non tech-savvy user would be confused by OpenID but I it surprises me how many programmers are confused by it.
On the login page they list a bunch of common providers you can login with if you already have an account with them: Google, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook, etc. Click their icon, type in your credentials.
If you don't have an account with one of those or don't wish to use them then it has a big register link to sign up with a myOpenID account.
You're making the same mistake as people who try to get programmers to fix their printer because programmers are "computer people." Competence with one technology does not confer instant familiarity with another — and however clear you might find OpenID, just the array of company logos alone is kind of overwhelming and highly unusual. Pretty much the opposite of "Don't make me think."
Yes, but Stack Overflow's signup screen takes more thinking than most sites (by virtue of being different, not to mention its complexity). Amazon's signup is far simpler and it does not seem to be terribly insecure.
OpenID makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless they have the sites in a drop down it takes about 5 minutes to read the OpenID spec, google around for where to get the openID url and paste it into the box. OpenID is a solution in search of a problem.
It may have actually been useful if it leveraged DNS SRV records so you could login as foo@bar.com and it would query SRV _openid.bar.com for the URL.
I'm working on a spec similar to this, but using TXT records (as they're URLs, not just servers). I wonder if anyone would be interested in me putting up what I have on this already?
That flexibility is what killed me with SO. I used the site for many months after creating an account, always recognized when I returned to the site.
Then one day I was signed out -- the cookie finally timed out, or was cleared somehow, etc., and I arrived at the login page, and was totally stymied. I always sign up for new services using their_domain@my_domain.tld, and that hadn't been possible here, apparently, because asking for a reminder with stackoverflow@my_domain.tld failed.
Ah, I must have registered with an account at any of these half-dozen sites. Well, I have accounts at all of them -- sometimes multiple accounts for different purposes -- all using different email addresses. I had no recollection at all of which I had chosen; I was totally stymied.
After a few days of trying different ways of getting in, I finally figured out the right one (still don't recall), and then could set stackoverflow@my_domain.tld as my backup email, so now I'm covered... but it was the worst sign-in experience I've ever had.
I'll give you the example of the OnStartups answers community. I am logged in on Safari, and when I go to my user page, it says my OpenID is from Yahoo. Fine.
Now I open Firefox. I try to login to OnStartups, because it doesn't know who I am. I click on Yahoo, go through the authentication process. Guess what: it says it can't find that account on OnStartups (wrong answer), but finds it on StackOverflow, and asks me if I want to link it to my new account. What???
Are you this Alain? http://answers.onstartups.com/users/502/alain-raynaud if so then your account looks up to date to me, and you were able to log in through Facebook. Realize that this was a legacy SE 1.0 site we imported over, so your account may have had some very old stuff in it, and it may not be representative of SE 2.0 logins.
Respectfully, "We did something on the backend and now some logins no longer function" is a fairly common implementation flaw with OpenID. This is a pretty serious Oops for an identity system. The traditional username/password pair is virtually immune to this, if we assume the developers are competent. (Competence will not solve OpenID delegation, as one example. It is virtually immune to comprehension by mortal minds.)
Something for other HNers to keep in mind if they are considering openID for their next project (flee, flee!)
Speaking generally, I agree, competence is a risky assumption. It isn't risky about the SO devs: I've met some, they're sharp. They're certainly well-past sharp enough to get username/password working right.
But OpenID is easy to screw up. Practically everyone has enormous problems with their implementations. (This goes seven times over for yours truly.) Which is (yet another) knock against choosing OpenID for anything important, versus systems which evidence exists can be implemented correctly. It is possible to bork username/password, but it is possible to implement it mostly correctly, too. I do not think it is possible to implement OpenID correctly. (For what it's worth, StackOverflow's is the best implementation I've seen from the user's perspective.)
The implementation issues comprise a very good point. Do you think this is solvable by better libraries? I've been working on my own solid implementation of OpenID for Django to plug-n-play with the built-in authentication system. Can it be saved and, if not, what's the alternative? Teach developers about bcrypt?
I recently had a problem with their account management as well: SE forgot who I am, and created a new account for my e-mail address. I then recovered my original account, and ended up being logged in as different users (with identical credentials) on the normal site and the meta site.
I do think the no-login approach is exactly right, but their implementation seems a little buggy.
Careful. If a user bypasses a warning dialog from the operating system to run a program they download from the Internet, is it still the OS's fault if it is malware?
Sometimes providing a perfect user experience is equivalent to solving the halting problem and not recognizing this is as big a problem as believing that all problems are the user's fault.
Yes. It's likely a 'Cry wolf' issue where the OS sends warning dialogs about every download, even safe ones. So the user thinks it's similar file so it's no problem.
Users had complaints about Windows UAC doing this for every instance (not just downloads).
It's likely a 'Cry wolf' issue where the OS sends warning dialogs about every download, even safe ones.
Right. This misunderstanding was the entire point of my post. Distinguishing between the "safe" downloads and the "unsafe" downloads is an instance of solving the halting problem.
Also, I was thinking of the Chrome "Run Application" dialog, not the UAC.
An exception can be found for every rule, in just about anything.
Nitpicking specific examples and then saying "oh, well this disproves it" proves nothing. 99 out of a 100 times, blaming the user isn't the right move. For the sake of brevity, I used ever and always.
Ah, but we're discussing a specific domain, security, where I think "the user is always right" is often wrong. Requiring a user to memorize 10+ essentially random characters, for example, is an awful user experience, but it is required for security purposes.
Personally, I prefer keys (long, randomly-generated passwords stored in a file or device) to passwords, but I don't know of any reasonable way to authenticate to a webapp with a key.
I've got an openID login for stackoverflow and it's a pain to constantly re-log-in. AND the orange 'welcome' pop-over is really obnoxious. I've mostly abandoned participating there after getting barely 1000 karma a year ago.
Having to do account recovery to recover the cookie is a perfectly valid technical response I guess. However since cookies are invisible, and account recovery is normally a big scary thing, it boils down to this:
(a) the end user has lost something invisible that they didn't even know they had
(b) the method of recovering the invisible token is to go to what is probably the last place they are going to look
No, you can participate (well, post answers/questions; no rep is gained) as an unregistered user without giving us an e-mail address at all (or even giving us a bogus one, we don't check).
If you do provide one, it lets you recover your cookie based account is all.
The "account" is as throw away as you want it to be, basically.
Sorry I was not clear and it is not terribly important. I've just wondered what it actually means to be "registered." If I have recovered my cookie-based account it means the account has been verified by e-mail. I'm just wondering isn't that a form of registration without having to have used OpenID?
Its mostly a distinction between "can login with one click (Registered with OpenId/Facebook)" and "can login with a crazy convoluted path (provide email [again], check email for link, etc.) (Unregistered)".
You can get the lion's share of a Stack Exchange's utility without registering, and this is quite intentional.
Ah, my bad; been a long time since I've had to do anything as an unregistered user, mis-remembered.
Looking at the code, we do require something that looks like an e-mail, for recovery purposes (I assume, that code predates me by a bit). It is not, however, verified.
I briefly liked Quora (partly because its the first site I've seen that serves up minified HTML). Now I find it boring, insular, and full of group think. Much like this article. And the valley. The concept that some non-valley site, that doesn't have all the cool kids behind it, might actually be successful is just not allowed within the techcrunch world-view.
You're a little harsher than I would be but you make a good point. The problem with online reputation on this type of system is most people won't verify the answers before they upvote them. At the same time an insular community creates a competition for status. So you get people who try to find and answer questions as quickly as possible regardless of whether the answer is right or not.
As someone who goes to Stack Overflow regularly I see this situation all the time. It goes like this...
1. Person asks a question (e.g. "I need to build a service that will serve school districts in Los Angeles County. How do I go about doing that?")
2. Someone comes along and answers the question with something that seems right (e.g. "Here are a bunch of links on building REST services...")
3. That answer gets upvoted and the answerer gets his reputation boosted
4. Later someone comes along with the right answer (e.g. LA Unified requires all services to be WSDL discoverable so you need to look at SOAP"). But it's too late because the question's already scrolled into the abyss.
So the guy who gave the wrong answer gets a better reputation and the guy who got the right one gets nothing (and the person who asked the question likely took the upvoted answer and didn't check back so they waist untold hours on the wrong thing)
It's usually not that hard to tell. The answerer from #2 may have a bunch of upvotes and a check mark, but it usually also has a few comments saying "you're wrong".
And who doesn't read the top few answers, if not all of the answers, anyways? Even if you expect the top answer to be the right answer, subsequent answers often help you understand the problem space a lot better.
I think your description of the problem is about right.
But: As a SO-consumer this particular problem doesn't phase me.
The better answers usually have more votes and sometimes the green checkmark is even on the best one - but when it's not, who cares?
To me as a SO-consumer a bigger problem recently has been the duplication. For any given question there may be dozens of threads which makes it harder to track down the good one(s). If SO wants to improve they should imho work on their deduplication efforts.
This might even be automatable to a point; let users vote on questions to be merged, and perform the merge when either the author agrees or a vote-threshold is met.
Your pedantry is not welcome here (as supported by your comment score). Please follow this rule in the future for posting on HN: always consider other user's comments in the best possible way they could have meant them.
I try and do my part by voting up the answers that are truly useful when I come across a question by searching, but I agree that it does tend to be a first-come first-serve type of system for the most part.
They've taken some steps to alleviate that (badges for getting an older answer upvoted to +5), but it's still an issue.
Having the right answer does help later onlookers into the question.
Moreover, the person asking the question has the most interest, but the least capacity to be patient. And, likewise the initial status-seeking answerers can get edgy for a quick tick.
I'm curious why you're impressed by minified HTML. Usually, given the CPU cost to minify a page and the fact that savings are in the tens of bytes after gzip, it is nearly certainly an overall performance and user experience loss.
Subjective measure. And I am not uncertain if an improvement has occurred or not.
edit: however, I do not minify on-the-fly, I keep the source HTML, CSS and JS files space and line-break compressed (and variable-name compressed.) The speed increase may be due to less going down the wire, or it may just be faster to process by the browser due to some other mechanism.
Also, having css and JS code within the HTML itself has sped things up too - no external files.
Have a look at the source of http://twitya.com/index.php - I also Gzip that, and this speeds it up as well. I keep a few line-breaks in for readability.
Takeaway: what matters most is having as little data go down the pipe as possible in a compressed fashion, and not worrying about server load - that could be offset by the improvements on the browser.
Also, Gzipping http://hackerbra.in has led to a marked improvement, with its large slabs of text.
The same people who say SO has "a poor UX" are the same people who say that Reddit has "a poor UX". They're conflating gradients, rounded rectangles and text shadows with a user's experience of the site.
the use case is rather different, though: Hacker News is a list of articles other people have written with discussion and commentary. Stack Overflow is a list of questions from your peers with potential answers. (Also, that's a really old screenshot)
Quite the opposite. I find SO's interface very busy, and wish it was a little simpler, closer to Reddit. Ultimately it's the community that makes it, and the UX is fairly irrelevant.
I want to make this Blue Oranges 35 thing real. Here's a start:
Level 0 (basic):
• XHR, not ajax
• No anchoring namespaces (no /r/ or /b/, just have users/spaces at the root.)
• No file extensions in URLs (no .html, .cgi, .aspx, ...)
• All production HTML/JS/CSS has newlines stripped to 32k characters per line.
• gzip for all html, js, css, json, ...
• Proper password storage
• Not exploitable by injection
• No XSS problems
• ...
Level 1 (extended):
Level 0 +
• Proper expires headers
• Proper CDN usage
• All authenticated transactions over https
• All JS/CSS minified but with full versions readily accessible.
• ...
Level 2 (optimal):
Level 1 +
• All pages generate in under 300ms
• All images properly sized/crushed
• ...
And, when the site has minified the JS/CSS, how would full versions be readily accessible?
A site that is happy with others learning from their own good practices won't want to do things that have the effect of obfuscating their resources, if the savings are very small. So other than the 'levels', you might want to split your benchmarks on whether collateral obfuscation is considered positive/neutral or negative.
As for having min and non-min, I like to have "file.compressed.js" and "file.js" available. We shouldn't shut off all avenues of learning for the sake of expediency.
If reputation is that important, then StackExchange's partition strategy is actually very effective. If you want to find good coders you go to StackOverflow. If you're looking for good photographers, you go to SE's photography site. There's no need for a centralized reputation hub. The reputation of a great coder on StackOverflow can't be diminished as a result of the creation of some new SE's long tail site.
But I doubt online reputation is that important. The reason I visit StackOverflow is to find answers to programming questions, not to look for experts. As for the experts, they don't need high karma on some Q&A site to get job offers.
The network effect and the quality of contributors is everything. Start in an entirely new field and you'll end up with the blind leading the blind, and the quality and reputation of the site will plummet. Just take a look at That Other Q&A Site.
For a new field, the site needs enthusiastic and highly competent contributors; otherwise it will fail.
StackOverflow is definitely more important right now.
But one thing I think they're messing up is the process for launching new StackExchange sites. They're trying this thing to qualify new sites to ensure they have critical mass, but I think it's too restrictive and hurting their growth.
As an example, I "pledged" to contribute to the AI stack exchange site if it were to launch. When it launched as a trial it received maybe 100 questions and some good answers in the first few weeks. I got answers to all my questions - good ones which pointed me toward research I hadn't found in Google etc.
But a week later it had been shut down and they emailed everyone saying it didn't meet minimum activity thresholds. Those questions and answers are no longer available on the net.
The question is whether a StackExchange site with relatively small activity is still useful. I think it is - at least it's more useful than not having them at all. Who is to say a small site couldn't become much bigger over time.
Reddit has done well letting users create any subreddit they want. There is a diverse ecosystem of subreddits out there with varying levels of activity. Keeping the long tail of subreddits around to see which flourish doesn't seem to hurt anything - so I don't understand the StackExchange approach to this.
(It reminds me of Wikipedia deleting obscure pages also - what does it hurt to have them?)
So you base that Stack Exchange has failed on one out of the two failed sites, out of over forty proposals that are still there?
As has already been mentioned elsewhere, if the site lacks genuine expertise of the topic, the blind will simply follow the other blind. Putting a site that doesn't work out of it's misery is doing the users a favor in the long run
I'm not sure that raw activity level is a good proxy for the amnount of genuine expertise in the topic that is present.
Some topics - of which AI is quite possibly one - are simply more niche than others, and therefore naturally will have less askers, less answerers and less experts.
Perhaps a better metric than raw activity level would be proportion of questions without an accepted answer? The tumbleweed sites that "don't work" would be characterised by many unanswered questions.
I never understood this 'There can be only one' attitude. I'm fine with thousands of these sites existing. There doesn't have to be 1 that's better than all the rest, and I don't have to spend every waking moment finding it, or making sure I'm already using it.
Sites also don't have to be 'important' for them to matter to people.
My guess is that we're seeing the results of the tech blogger echo chamber. These self proclaimed experts need methods to legitimize their existence and quantify their awesomeness. What better way than a big fat number on the one end-all-be-all site? See also: Scoble was biggest contributor on Quora.
Of course, it's all ridiculous (for now). Most people in the real world have better things to do than troll around on Q&A sites hoping for karma. Until someone figures out how to convert karma into a competitive paycheck, this is all nonsense.
I'd be hesitant to hire someone that had huge karma on any site (including HN), unless they had real projects to show that their passions include shipping rather than just talking real pretty about it on the Internet.
Someone can be clever and knowledgeable, and still be a poor employee or co-founder. (And, my least productive times are often when I'm most interested in what's happening on reddit/HN/etc.)
Decently large karma means there would be a lot of comments to browse through though which can give you an idea about the person. To a point be knowledgeable on startups and the tech scene is an advantage but yeah there is a point where time is better spend getting something done.
My comment should be taken with the knowledge that I have pretty big karma at both reddit and HN (and StackExchange, though I've never browsed or considered signing up for quora). Obviously, I like to think I'm a pretty useful person to have around in a company. So, my comment is definitely one of balance rather than "don't hire people who talk a lot on the Internet".
Karma the number will never be converted to a competitive paycheck because there are too many ways to game the system.
What is good about sites like StackExchange is that they encourage public discussion, and knowledge sharing. So if you have a StackExchange account, an HR rep doesn't have to just take your word for it that you're a well spoken, helpful individual---they can peek over on StackExchange and actually see your answers, comments, and questions. The karma attached to them is a meaningless indicator of popularity and not quality.
The point he is making is that stackoverflow is important because
1. It is useful at work
2. It is useful for getting work
He dimisses the possibility that people asking questions about photography might not be photographers doing it for a living ( and a hodgepodge of sites focused on photography, mathematics, Apple, video games, board games, role-playing games, and science fiction. Interesting? Sure. Important? Hell, no. )
Besides who can be more obsesses about scores than gamers?
Mathoverflow is awesome. I don't know if the stack exchange guys run it (it certainly uses their software), but it is already professionally relevant for practicing mathematicians.
I believe he is referring to Math StackExchange (math.stackexchange.com), a site which was created to serve as a MathOverflow-equivalent for mathematics students or others who aren't professional mathematicians. I've found Math StackExchange to be highly useful, and the quality of the answers you get is higher than anywhere else.
mathoverflow.net is an independent Stack Exchange 1.0 site on an old fork of the engine; math.stackexchange.com is a fully qualified Stack Exchange 2.0 peer site on the current rev of the engine. see: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-excha...
I was actually thinking about a startup idea around this general theme. I'm going to share it with Hacker News, tell me what you think.
I do not think reputation should be owned by a single site because unlike social networking, there are going to be lots of places to contribute to your online presence.
Yes, stack overflow is important when trying to hire a programmer, but I have also looked at blogs, twitter, github projects, etc.
What really needs to happen is for a startup to create a way to aggregate activity online into a central location to disseminate to the world. Blogging made sense as a means to communicate an idea in 2001, but 10 years later, this needs to change. The internet is shifting heavily towards one that is more focused on communities and the interactions in that community are what are most reflective of an internet identity/reputation.
Just think about your own lives. Yes, sometimes you have one off ideas that you would love to blog and tweet about. That's great, you should keep doing that. But I bet you are also dropping bombs of wisdom on various sites like Quora, Hacker News and Stack Overflow that you wish you could share with more people and keep in a more permanent place.
There needs to be a central place to disseminante the highlights of an online presence. And that site should own the online reputation.
This has been tried in several eras; there was an initiative 'OpenPrivacy' (folding around 2002) that wanted a standard for portable profiles and reputations, and this also seemed to me the original focus of RapLeaf.
More recently, about.me (acquired by AOL) and flavors.me have tackled one portion of this, the user-controlled aggregation of their multiple presences. There may still be prospects for a new service, though the resistance of existing reputation silos could be a problem.
These are not addressing the same problem, which is that we're shifting from a stand alone idea sharing platform model to a community idea sharing platform model that needs consolidation from the inherent fragmentation of the ecosystem (Quora, Hacker News, etc.)
I think those are all trying to tackle a subtle difference than what I am talking about. About.me and Flavors.me is more so about one off content creation and status profile sites (blogs, twitter, linkedin, facebook).
What I'm saying is that things like Quora, Hacker News, are now becoming the preferred medium to share ideas as opposed to standalone sites. Many Quora answers are essentially blog posts.
It's not hard to display online reputations side by side on a resume. Reputations mean different things to different people, according to different contexts.
I think Joel and Jeff touched on the issues discussed in the article in their podcasts.
And Jeff always proclaimed that the purpose of the site is a very pragmatic one. To be a source of help for the specific professional community. Not a place to meet your buddies and hang out.
And there's a place for both. Personally, I like that StackOverflow stays away from too much social interaction and focuses on providing valuable technical content.
Dumb question: I went to http://www.quora.com and it's asking me to sign up. I know that the actual questions and answers are publicly viewable but is there any obvious way to get to them from the home page?
Totally. StackExchange sites welcome you with a display of their goods as soon as you approach the front of house, but having just headed over to Quora for the first time ever, I felt like I had been chased up a blind alley and couldn't find a doorway. I managed to sneak in through a crack in the fence (by going to another page as suggested in this thread, but the site front end seems to be designed to put off visitors.
Furthermore, when you create an account with Quora, it begs and pleads with you to give it all your personal information in your Facebook account. Not just "What is your token ID?" or even "Who are your friends?", no! Everything about you!
But what takes the cake is the history tracking that Quora uses. It suggests topics that interest me. Like both Barnes and Noble and Borders... from an article I read on HN yesterday. Blatantly telling your users that you're spying on their activity is a great way to endear them to your service.
Yea I complained about this before. It's not clear at all what your facebook data will be used for. In fact I'm going to go delete my Quora account right now, I didn't realize just how much data they can get from me!
Agreed. The author: a hodgepodge of sites focused on photography, mathematics, Apple, video games, board games, role-playing games, and science fiction. Interesting? Sure. Important? Hell, no.
All these "other" SE sites are built around the things that real people are passionate about. That stuff is quite important!
I strongly disagree with the common conception that high points on StackOverflow would be a good measure of coder's quality.
They are merely the measure of someone's involvement in answering the questions.
Sadly, many answerers are just point hunters. They seem to monitor questions and quickly google for answers. I observed this asking specific detailed questions. Most answers were something obvious, something without accordance to the details of the question, or just blind guesses. People are just putting answers in the hope they will earn at least an upvote!!
It's not only stupid, but i guess it's a massive abuse of the original idea behind this site.
Add the fact that most points are earned by people answering questions about C#/.NET. It's related to the fact that this platform somehow has masses of mediocre programmers, or even people suddenly put in the role of programmers. They go asking tons of questions while they should rather RTFM or polish their skills by coding. No wonder that a mass of questions generates a mass of answers. So the whole stack exchange idea of points is about quantity, not quality.
Agreed. I'm somewhere around the top 40 on HN but it would be absurd to say I'm even near the top 100 hackers or entrepreneurs around here. I just know how, when and what to say more than many of the folks actually getting on with their work ;-)
Like with other aspects of hiring (IQ Tests, Programming Tests, Writing Tests, Interviews, GPA's, Uni Results) they should be a facet in making the final decision.
The way I see it there are two main ways to use someone's Stack Exchange reputation.
First just using the fact that they have an account and reputation, in finding out how involved and engaged they are with the community.
Secondly drilling down into the questions they've asked, and the answers provided to get a better understanding of someone's strengths and weaknesses, and seeing where their expertise lies.
Also at the end if there's no other way to make a decision between two people, one can just take the person with the higher reputation score.
Quite an annoying article - creating conflict for the sake of it?
StackExchange and Quora are only very superficially similar. StackExchange is very specifically about asking questions that have definitive answers, and getting those answers.
Quora is a question-based social network discussion site.
I also find the Stackexchange sites generally give me more relevant answers faster. The advantage of having a beta time where a core group users get to explicitly state their interest perhaps?
I looked at the existing answers, and I don't think anyone made this point: SO and its spinoffs are an example of do what you know.
People can smell when someone not from their domain tries to make something for them - and it does not smell good. In order for the SO model to work, they need experts versed in the area to be the core of the community. There are two ways to do this: try to attract such people after creating the site, or let the site organically arise because it was created by such people.
Meh, I hate the Quora UI. I'm too busy/lazy to find questions that interest me on it. Stackoverflow, on the other hand, is very quick and easy to navigate and has a very friendly UI.End result: I use stackoverflow regularly and have only ever viewed Quora maybe five times.
I clicked this link expecting the usual TC love-in with Quora--and I got that--but I actually agree that the StackEchange model is flawed.
What works for programmers doesn't necessarily work for other groups (and vice versa). I will be shocked if any of these becomes a site as important in their respective field as SO.
As for Quora... Please for God's sake TechCrunch will you shut up about Quora. It's a Q&A site with a Facebook login that is liked by the Valley insiders--and is thought important by the same--because the other Valley insiders use it.
Until it gets appeal beyond the Valley it's a storm in a teacup. What's more I'll go out on a limb and say Quora will never get mass appeal.
To the Quora founders: congratulations on the Emperor's new clothes. Sell up before the jog is up.
Quora has been successful at obtaining authoritative opinions - something that Google Knol failed to do because it grants an online reputation, instant readership and following to those that express their opinion, which seems to be important to such people. Furthermore, to me, it's like Ask HN and Hackerfollow on steroids. I still won't participate in it, but will read it like I read Wikipedia.
What question2answer needs is a plugin that calls upon the right users to come in and answer a question according to its tags and categories -- and ideally some shared session/domain login.
With Q&A, one should go out to where the action is happening, so decentralization is the key in this case.
StackOverflow works beautifully - it's hit that "this just feels RIGHT" stage.
It's less clear right now that the StackExchange / Area51 model is working. The process of selecting topics, building support and getting going looks good on paper, but it looks as though it's lost a lot of momentum.
So the StackExchange team need to take seriously the issue that as things stand, the model of building out into new Q&A territories can't depend solely on people who are comfortable with SO (e.g. devs) and take that familiarity into another sphere (e.g. devs who also bake).
The issue of "reputation" is really interesting and my guess is that will be more and more important in the future. It is already important in specialized communities where it makes sense to be an expert or a master or a ninja or you name it or gain karma points.
But I am not sure how important can it be in communities with many many users and without a well defined focus. He refers to a few metrics for the social component but it is not clear yet what a good and appealing "reputation metric" could be.
I completely agree with this. I tried to get a product management site up and running (http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/28281/product-mana...), because I know the value I've gotten from the software development side. It is an impossible task that I've since given up on. My questions now go to Quora.
SO is a very successfull Site without all the koolaid, wich is great. Hell, the even run everything on Windows... On HN you would probably get beaten to death when saying something like that.
Stackoverflow has provided value to me. Quora just provides moments of lazy recreation, if any.
And who is pronouncing Twitter as the silver? None of my Fb contacts are even remotely aware of any of the apps I use, never mind have an account or a need to use them. With Twitter I usually find at least ten followrazzi for every new app/service I sign up for.
Twitter is business. Facebook is the ten dipshits and the nine-toed women I used to know.
My impression thus far of StackOverflow - and I could certainly be wrong about this - is that the most reputation goes to those in the most popular technology boat. In other words, a high reputation says as much or more about what you work on versus how 'good' you are.
I guess this is a fundamental problem with any metric that reflects popularity.
Reputation is, by and large, a measure of how time you spend on the site, much like an MMO. If you're interested in more popular technologies, you tend to have more questions to answer (and yes, more people read and upvote your answers).
The older I get the more transparent sites like techcrunch become. Shitty personal opinions are apparently worth a lot of money if you have the right audience.
StackOverflow should change absolutely nothing about their login process. It is perfect. I anonymously answered one question, and all of a sudden I have a profile. No confirmation e-mail, no Facebook or Twitter crap. Just use the site and bam! you're registered. It remembers me every time I come back and it makes absolutely no fucking attempt to worm its way into my social graph.