Timeline for answer to Why is SE gutting the CM team? by GhostCat
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2020 at 15:24 | comment | added | GhostCat | But you aren't a member of that organization. You didn't spend even one minute in the same room with the person you claimed to have that sort of problem. You don't anything firsthand about that person. It is as simple as that. | |
| Jan 18, 2020 at 13:47 | comment | added | Rounin | Neither you nor I nor many others have acted in a toxic manner. Pointing at and describing toxic behaviour is not the same as (nor even equivalent to) behaving toxically. In any organisation I believe it's incumbent upon as many members as possible to openly say when members with senior responsibility behave toxically. This is for the good of the organisation as a whole. If that individual's attention is repeatedly drawn to this fact and they still cannot see it (perhaps because they lack a philosophy of fallibility), the underlying issue may be deeper psychological problems. | |
| Jan 18, 2020 at 13:01 | comment | added | GhostCat | @Rounin As we have zero insights into what actually gets said and done by whom, I suggest to absolutely avoid such kind of speculation. It is a pointless and useless effort, solely contributing to an already toxic environment | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 21:47 | comment | added | Richard | @LightnessRaceswithMonica - "The people you might hope to reach are not reading Meta"*. In fact it would appear that staff have been given specific instructions not to waste their time here and to actively stay away; i.sstatic.net/74b49.png | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 21:11 | history | edited | GhostCat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2020 at 14:46 | comment | added | Lightness Races in Orbit | @DanBron Re your first comment, in any other context I'd probably say you're spot on. But in this particular instance I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of more going on: it's absolutely no secret that certain SE top brass are not wild about having direct community engagement (in fact, they've specifically stated they'll be rolling it back in favour of hand-picked survey targets) so why wouldn't you get rid of your Community Managers, not because you can't afford them but because their roles don't align with your goals | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 13:17 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @DanBron But will the buyer really buy the story they are presenting them? The enterprise Q&A software might fly, but the public Q&A will never be a cash cow for the service provider; it should at least pay for some engineers and CMs like Shog. The ad revenue should be enough to keep the service going. Maximizing short-term profit while risking that the long-term public Q&A business collapses - that is such a simple story that potential buyers should be able to look through it, or don't they? On the other hand, history is full of examples where investors were fouled easily. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 11:42 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @PeterMortensen Acquisition. They are looking for strong growth numbers in Teams (hence the generous free packages they’re offering at the moment; they don’t need $ from it yet, just user count for future potential) to show the base is monetizable, and good baseline P&L (hence increased ads and reduced headcount). | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 7:32 | comment | added | Magisch | @PeterMortensen I don't reckon there is a lot to liquidate. The content isn't sellable (it's CC licensed) and the software is decent but not angel investor satisfying decent to sell. They're probably aching to get acquired by someone big. If not my guess is as good as yours but just shutting it down and selling the assets piecemeal might happen. | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 6:16 | comment | added | This_is_NOT_a_forum | @Dan Bron: So what will the end game look like? Slow liquidation? | |
| Jan 15, 2020 at 6:14 | history | edited | This_is_NOT_a_forum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading. [<http://stackoverflow.com/legal/trademark-guidance> (the last section)].
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 16:05 | comment | added | David W | @DanBron I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't comment here on Meta much, but amid all the "things" that have gone on here the last few months, and some other seemingly unrelated comments - and then a light bulb went on - follow the money; and the direction toward enhancing monetization has been unmistakable. And, let's face it, to someone who only counts beans, its probably next to impossible to show how CM's add to the profit line. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 9:22 | comment | added | GhostCat | @Richard I am not talking about what SE Inc does. I am talking about what would be reasonable preparation. Even a manager who dislikes MSE should understand that MSE affects the motivation of plenty of people to contribute to the platform, and thus to the "revenue" of the company. It doesn't matter if the CEO has "community" in his genes (or not so much). What I am saying is that even from a business perspective, it is not wise to ignore people that contribute to your platform. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 9:16 | comment | added | Richard | @GhostCatsalutesMonicaC. - "the minute their manager told them, I would have posted an announcement on MSE. - I think you're dramatically overestimating the important of MSE on SE's thinking. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 8:56 | comment | added | John Dvorak | Technically they might have if the community didn't beat them to the punch. The community gave them no time to act first. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 8:52 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @GhostCatsalutesMonicaC. I'd say that this is impossible to not notice. Even if you stop the CMs from just flat out tweeting about it, the first time they speak somebody will notice the lack of a diamond. And even if they don't chat, they are bound to be mentioned at some point, somebody looks at their profile, and there will be questions. | |
| Jan 14, 2020 at 8:46 | history | edited | GhostCat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 242 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2020 at 8:34 | comment | added | GhostCat | @DanBron Well, we will never know. What for sure could have been known: A) that these firings(?) would be noticed and that B) this will cause uproar again and C) result in even more people walking away, further deteriorating a broken place. To me, that sounds like a high financial risk to take ... | |
| Jan 13, 2020 at 22:49 | comment | added | gbjbaanb | @jscs but in the world of MBAs profitable isn't acceptable, you have to be maximally profitable even if it means destroying what the company stood for. | |
| Jan 13, 2020 at 22:01 | comment | added | jscs | "overthinking this" I don't think so. At least one member of staff has been stating publicly for a while that they are profitable. There's a comment I remember too, but I can't find it; it's probably under a deleted answer. | |
| Jan 13, 2020 at 21:49 | comment | added | Dan Bron | I think you’re overthinking this. SE has been dropping hints since last year or longer that they’re not doing well financially. The CEO stepped away without a replacement and then when a replacement was found months later he’s a known M&A guy. The rationale given, when the ideological fluff is removed, for the various “welcome newbies” campaigns have been that the regular use base is declining alarmingly and the new fresh blood. And so forth. The staff has been cut because they need to cut costs. That’s it. | |
| Jan 13, 2020 at 21:17 | history | answered | GhostCat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
