Stack Exchange 2.0

Wednesday 28 April 2010

In the beginning there was Stack Overflow, the programmer's Q&A site. It's been very successful, easily overtaking its competition. It's now the clear best choice for a place to ask questions and look for answers about programming.

After a few months, Stack Overflow spawned Server Fault (for system administration topics) and Super User (for computer user topics). They've been moderately successful, nothing like Stack Overflow, though: they've each accumulated 36,000 questions, while Stack Overflow has 640,000 so far.

Then they figured, why can't we handle any topics at all, and let anyone create their own site? And so Stack Exchange was born, a site where anyone could create a Q&A arena on whatever topic they wanted.

But it wasn't free, in fact, it seemed kind of expensive: $129/month. And the sites weren't taking off. It seemed that each step removed from programming questions meant a 20x drop-off in traffic. The Stack Overflow team (Joel Spolsky, Jeff Attwood and a bunch of others) are now looking for ways to extend their success, including getting some investment.

As part of their new plan, they've announced changes to Stack Exchange: Stack Exchange 2.0. Everything's free now, but the process for creating new sites has become as convoluted as a Politburo meeting. Interestingly, the comments on the announcement are mostly mad about the loss of the paid option, because a paid site is owned by its creator, while the free sites are not.

I think the new community creation process is way too heavyweight, especially where they require a certain number of users with a certain number karma points on existing sites to commit to a community before it will be created.

Overall, it's a familiar internet story: a startup creates something, people start using it, but then the business plan shifts, and users are left feeling abandoned. Small startups have to adapt to survive, but they don't want to piss off too many people along the way.

One interesting point in this whole thing: Joel has been very direct with people, telling them if they think they can do a better job building a community, they're welcome to use one of the Stack Overflow clones to do it. And there are a bunch of clones: Array Shift is built in Drupal, OSQA is a Django app, and Shapado looks pretty full-featured. There are probably more.

It'll be interesting to watch the continued evolution of the Stack Overflow ecosystem. I'm not sure any community will get the critical mass that the original Stack Overflow did, but it's worth trying a few ways to make it happen.

Comments

[gravatar]
Sam Penrose 9:53 PM on 28 Apr 2010

I wonder how many of those 640K were joelonsoftware.com forums users whom he acquired 5+ years ago, when there was less competition?

[gravatar]
Ned Batchelder 10:03 PM on 28 Apr 2010

@Sam, I do think stackoverflow had a good head start with Joel and codinghorror readers. I think the site has a heavy MS technology slant partly due to that. But the traffic is far too large now to give that head start much credit. They've earned the volume they're getting.

[gravatar]
Atamert Ölçgen 12:32 AM on 29 Apr 2010

I totally agree with the submission process being too heavyweight. Their defense on this one is equally absurd: "we don't want people to scatter around too much". But they have a point in requiring a certain number of high-reputation users to commit.

However this could be as low as 5. Some niche topics will have a small active community but that doesn't mean they won't generate as much content as other, bigger ones.

[gravatar]
Ian Bicking 12:55 AM on 29 Apr 2010

I don't think this is unreasonable; maybe not successful, but for competitive reasons, not necessarily because it is a bad idea. Getting a good community going is important, and putting up a barrier requires the people founding the site put in some important up-front work. That work is sometimes easier to do early on when you have an imposed goal. Otherwise you get lots of dead sites.

[gravatar]
mikey 9:20 AM on 29 Apr 2010

Right on Ned. I have been following the story on their podcast and had the same reaction with the Stack Exchange new model. It feels like the wrong approach and you have articulated that very well.

[gravatar]
mikey 9:28 AM on 29 Apr 2010

My other thought is that the idea sounded like they were listening to the VCs...

[gravatar]
Parand Darugar 1:16 PM on 29 Apr 2010

OSQA looks pretty good, I'm planning on giving it a try. If anyone has success with any of the clones please blog/tweet/reply.

[gravatar]
Patcito 3:28 PM on 29 Apr 2010

Hi, shapado.com dev here. We are actively developing and have already helped various StackExchange sites to migrate. Creating your own site takes less than 8 seconds so feel free to give a try @Parand Darugar and the others :)

Add a comment:

name
email
Ignore this:
not displayed and no spam.
Leave this empty:
www
not searched.
 
Name and either email or www are required.
Don't put anything here:
Leave this empty:
URLs auto-link and some tags are allowed: <a><b><i><p><br><pre>.