29

I noticed a post went up today from Prasanth and Jody detailing future plans. I've been trying rather hard to get clarity on what SE's plans and further actions will be, both formally and informally, and it's disheartening to not get a reply from the means available to an active community member. I'm personally not a fan of the current initiative, but I also feel like the messaging is all over the place, and the folks who should be communicating with us seem to be keeping us in the dark. Unfortunately the blog hasn't really shed light on many of these issues.

Now I'm still confused cause I'm both told "nothing is set in stone yet" and, to quote the blog post:

Our public platform, including the Stack Exchange network, will now be known simply as Stack Overflow, while Stack Overflow Business will comprise our Ads business, Stack Internal (formerly known as Stack Overflow for Teams), and Stack Data Licensing (formerly known as Knowledge Solutions).

The company's been calling itself Stack Overflow for years. I'm still unclear what this means for the currently Stack Exchange branded sites and what we call ourselves. This is a core issue for me and much of the community.

I'd also note that rather than unifying the brand, now you have 2 brands - Stack and Stack Overflow, which seems at odds with the reasoning given, that having 2 brands was too confusing.

Sunsetting the Stack Exchange branding is also the opposite of the feedback the company has been getting via meta and many moderators. We still need to know what this means for the network and smaller sites, and the company, and the staff I've tried to ask about either seem not to be sure, or elusive over what plans are.

I've asked this before, and will do so again: what are the company's intentions about the smaller sites, and if we're all Stack Overflow, wouldn't that confuse people who associate the site with programming?

The second part is this - near the end, there's an invitation to vote on the new visual identity. I was under the impression that the vote ended months ago and a decision made. Is this a new vote, or a continuation of the old (rather short?) voting period? It ended ages ago. If this is an error - well, it might need correction, and is a reflection of how confusing the process is. If not, why wasn't it made obvious? One of the pieces of feedback with that vote was how short it was, and re-publicizing it would have been a good choice.

Improve this question
2
  • 8
    The confusion is deep rooted indeed - Personally I call the company Stack Overflow when I am mad at them, and Stack Exchange when I am not :D Commented Dec 31, 2025 at 11:03
  • 2
    What will Meta Stack Exchange be called? Meta Stack? Meta Stack Overflow? If the latter, what will happen to the real Meta Stack Overflow('s name)? Commented Dec 31, 2025 at 18:18

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
24

It's the same content as the 10 July 2025 blog. From the 22 December 2025 blog:

[Ed. note: While we take some time to rest up over the holidays and prepare for next year, we are re-publishing our top ten posts for the year. Please enjoy our favorite work this year and we’ll see you in 2026.]

Even the comments are reproduced.

Of course they should have headed every repost with that.

The URL for the original now links to the repost:
https://stackoverflow.blog/2025/07/10/a-new-era-of-stack-overflow/

Original URL at archive.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250710140801/https://stackoverflow.blog/2025/07/10/a-new-era-of-stack-overflow/

Improve this answer
4
  • I don't recall seeing it before - when was this? Commented Dec 31, 2025 at 13:35
  • 17
    @JourneymanGeek It's hard to tell, because they implement their re-publishing by retroactively changing the date on the post, which is then reflected in the URL and all archives. It's a bad practice: other blogs, like The Daily WTF and Not Always Right, actually create a new copy of the page when they do this. Commented Dec 31, 2025 at 13:40
  • 13
    Thanks. I hate it. I miss the good ol days when people actually stopped to think about the confusion of their readers, and proofread. Commented Dec 31, 2025 at 14:40
  • 10
    Oh my, that's next-level confusing. They're just going to edit random timestamps (?). Commented Dec 31, 2025 at 23:29
-3

what are the company's intentions about the smaller sites, and if we're all Stack Overflow, wouldn't that confuse people who associate the site with programming?

The company intents to keep the smaller sites. It said so multiple times in previous posts. I can find the exact places if needed.

And the name of the smaller and larger sites are Stack Overflow Public Platform Sites (at least for the time being). That was in one of the very first diagrams.

That may be somewhat confusing depending on if you associate Stack Overflow primarily with programming or if you just see it as a brand identifier. My guess is that the company wants you to somehow do both. Keep the good vibes it has in the programming community and also see it as a generic, all-topics Q&A label.

"Stack Exchange" as a brand name seems to be gone. They stated "one network, one name", "all Stack Exchange sites will continue to exist, but under the Stack Overflow name & brand.", "It might feel strange at first".

I'm not sure it will work, but I think I could live with it. It's probably a decision for everyone him/herself to make, with what brand name they can best live with.

What is left? To reduce uncertainty and go forward or not with the renaming. They said they will need about a year or so and it started middle of 2025, so the uncertainty will probably endure for a little longer. Especially about how to name this stack exchange here. My bet is on meta.meta.stackoverflow.com but then I'm a programmer. And it's not my duty to come up with a new name.

I personally think that for example Interpersonal Relations Stack Overflow Public Platform Site is a bit awkward, but not necessarily confusing. And over time, the meaning of brand names can change.

I don't want to exclude that they are unsure themselves and the rebranding will be changed significantly or even cancelled. This is just the current state as known from what they say.

Improve this answer
8
  • 5
    They've not really said anything. That's a bit of an issue Commented Jan 1 at 9:16
  • @JourneymanGeek They could be more explicit but they say some things which are clear: "Stack Exchange" is dead, only "Stack Overflow" for everything, smaller sites are kept, it's the "Public Platform". That's what they say and I'm not so much concerned with misunderstanding them. Stack Overflow is just an identifier. It doesn't have to mean anything. I only think the choices are a bit generic and awkward. Commented Jan 1 at 9:22
  • Ah but I am. And other folks are. And I very much would like the company to try to communicate effectively internally and externally about these things. If they were explicit about stack exchange being dead, I'd have an easier time organising resistance to the change. If they listened and communicated that they had better alternatives, we'd be better off spending energy on other things. Commented Jan 1 at 9:24
  • @JourneymanGeek So you and other folks think that Stack Exchange isn't dead? I think this was the only true outcome so far. I will try and find the exact citation for that. Commented Jan 1 at 9:31
  • @JourneymanGeek I added the quotes where they seem, in my eyes, to quite clearly state that Stack Exchange as a brand name is dead. Overall I find less confusion and uncertainty about the brand renaming than you suggest in the question. It seems to be relatively clear. I hope that helps you to organize resistance. And I suggest that voting here is akin to shooting the messenger. I didn't do any of the rebranding or reported anything in bad faith. It seems people just are in the mood of downvoting something because they are unhappy with the planned change. I can understand that. Commented Jan 1 at 11:39
  • Or that this is very much a question for the company, and this kinda muddles things. Especially where there's additional confusion, perhaps this answer's seen as not very helpful. Commented Jan 1 at 11:48
  • @JourneymanGeek Definitely possible. Then I simply fail to see it. Commented Jan 1 at 14:30
  • meta.meta would be too logical, I think we can close it out. I see a huge chance that the SE will remain, probably not for a while but for a really long time, maybe forever. Reason is simple: the last 10 years consequently has shown that the company neglects the SE where it only can do that. The idea that, for example, the SE sites would get the new design (currently beta.stackoverflow.com), well that would not be they. Their latest achievement on the stupidity contest, that they have killed the job SO, even the indeed crap, out of the USA. Commented 2 days ago

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.