Skip to main content

Return to Answer

added 1 character in body
Source Link
NoDataDumpNoContribution
NoDataDumpNoContribution
  • 10.9k
  • 9
  • 68
  • 154

Iceberg? What iceberg? We don't see any!

The strong contrast between the dire warnings of the Meta community, for example in the answers to the recent contribution of the CEO (the iceberg metaphor), and the missing recognition of any such risk by the company in their official statements as well as the statements given here, is striking. Time will tell if itsit's growth or shrinkage. My money would currently be on shrinkage and I don't think they make a convincing case for the opposite.

A slogan is not a vision. The current mission of StackOverflow is unclear.

"Help to write the script of the future" is so vague that I would not call it a vision or mission statement. It could really be anything and rather sounds like a slogan. I might have a few ideas what it could include, but I might err and it should not be. The mission of StackOverflow should be clear, so that everyone can understand it. I really hope they have more details on that and I hope they find ways to explainshare them. For the moment I would assume that they do not have a mission that is really well defined. (compare with "build a knowledge base of high quality programming Q&A" to see a difference between a slogan and a mission statement)

Do they underestimate the value of the Meta community?

Meta is out of the loop, it doesn't play any formal or significant role any more, neither in the definition of community nor in the quantification of the relationship between company and users.

I'm the first to agree that Meta users are only a tiny subgroup of all users (or even potential users) of StackOverflow, but the value that Meta users offer is far above average. So what does it mean in the end? How can the value of Meta be determined? They seem to have come to the conclusion that the value is rather low in the big picture. Could be wrong.

Monitoring quality only doesn't cut it.

They say that they monitor quality of the content, and that is really good, but unfortunately not enough. Quality is dropping and actions to counter it must be taken or the iceberg will come and get us all. The link for the definition of quality refers to How is question quality measured in A/B tests? by Jon Ericson from 2017 and according to that the quality steadily decreased over time and is continueing to decrease.

Unwelcoming is a buzzword, it can mean anything and should not be a metric by itself

The surveys are so superficial, nobody knows what unwelcoming really includes. Are downvotes unwelcoming? Is not giving answers or closing questions unwelcoming? What is exactly is unwelcoming? And what can be done about it without lowering quality? I really hope that unwelcoming can be broken down into more meaningful subcategories one day.

There has been no engagement over the license change.

There was only the announcement and later a single answer iterating, both heavily downvoted at the time being and nothing really about the motivation and legal perspective of the change. I'm very critical of it and I'm not satisfied by these statements here either.

So, that are the main critical points I see. Which doesn't mean that I disliked all I read, some things I even liked, but I want to wait more and see how this plays out before giving out praise.

Thanks Aaron for doing all this work in such a professional way and thanks to the company for engaging with single persons. Maybe next time they could post on Meta as well. The promise of the CEO to post at least quarterly on Meta, compared to the thousands of posts from Jeff Atwood ... doesn't look so well. Well, the past is the past and that is that.

Iceberg? What iceberg? We don't see any!

The strong contrast between the dire warnings of the Meta community, for example in the answers to the recent contribution of the CEO (the iceberg metaphor), and the missing recognition of any such risk by the company in their official statements as well as the statements given here, is striking. Time will tell if its growth or shrinkage. My money would currently be on shrinkage and I don't think they make a convincing case for the opposite.

A slogan is not a vision. The current mission of StackOverflow is unclear.

"Help to write the script of the future" is so vague that I would not call it a vision or mission statement. It could really be anything and rather sounds like a slogan. I might have a few ideas what it could include, but I might err and it should not be. The mission of StackOverflow should be clear, so that everyone can understand it. I hope they have more details on that and I hope they find ways to explain them. For the moment I would assume that they do not have a mission that is really well defined. (compare with "build a knowledge base of high quality programming Q&A" to see a difference between a slogan and a mission statement)

Do they underestimate the value of the Meta community?

Meta is out of the loop, it doesn't play any formal or significant role any more, neither in the definition of community nor in the quantification of the relationship between company and users.

I'm the first to agree that Meta users are only a tiny subgroup of all users (or even potential users) of StackOverflow, but the value that Meta users offer is far above average. So what does it mean in the end? How can the value of Meta be determined? They seem to have come to the conclusion that the value is rather low in the big picture.

Monitoring quality only doesn't cut it.

They say that they monitor quality of the content, and that is really good, but unfortunately not enough. Quality is dropping and actions to counter it must be taken or the iceberg will come and get us all. The link for the definition of quality refers to How is question quality measured in A/B tests? by Jon Ericson from 2017 and according to that the quality steadily decreased over time and is continueing to decrease.

Unwelcoming is a buzzword, it can mean anything and should not be a metric by itself

The surveys are so superficial, nobody knows what unwelcoming really includes. Are downvotes unwelcoming? Is not giving answers or closing questions unwelcoming? What is exactly is unwelcoming? And what can be done about it without lowering quality? I really hope that unwelcoming can be broken down into more meaningful subcategories one day.

There has been no engagement over the license change.

There was only the announcement and later a single answer iterating, both heavily downvoted at the time being and nothing really about the motivation and legal perspective of the change. I'm very critical of it and I'm not satisfied by these statements here either.

So, that are the main critical points I see. Which doesn't mean that I disliked all I read, some things I even liked, but I want to wait more and see how this plays out before giving out praise.

Thanks Aaron for doing all this work in such a professional way and thanks to the company for engaging with single persons. Maybe next time they could post on Meta as well. The promise of the CEO to post at least quarterly on Meta, compared to the thousands of posts from Jeff Atwood ... doesn't look so well. Well, the past is the past and that is that.

Iceberg? What iceberg? We don't see any!

The strong contrast between the dire warnings of the Meta community, for example in the answers to the recent contribution of the CEO (the iceberg metaphor), and the missing recognition of any such risk by the company in their official statements as well as the statements given here, is striking. Time will tell if it's growth or shrinkage. My money would currently be on shrinkage and I don't think they make a convincing case for the opposite.

A slogan is not a vision. The current mission of StackOverflow is unclear.

"Help to write the script of the future" is so vague that I would not call it a vision or mission statement. It could really be anything and rather sounds like a slogan. I might have a few ideas what it could include, but I might err. The mission of StackOverflow should be clear, so that everyone can understand it. I really hope they have more details on that and I hope they find ways to share them. For the moment I would assume that they do not have a mission that is really well defined. (compare with "build a knowledge base of high quality programming Q&A" to see a difference between a slogan and a mission statement)

Do they underestimate the value of the Meta community?

Meta is out of the loop, it doesn't play any formal or significant role any more, neither in the definition of community nor in the quantification of the relationship between company and users.

I'm the first to agree that Meta users are only a tiny subgroup of all users (or even potential users) of StackOverflow, but the value that Meta users offer is far above average. So what does it mean in the end? How can the value of Meta be determined? They seem to have come to the conclusion that the value is rather low in the big picture. Could be wrong.

Monitoring quality only doesn't cut it.

They say that they monitor quality of the content, and that is really good, but unfortunately not enough. Quality is dropping and actions to counter it must be taken or the iceberg will come and get us all. The link for the definition of quality refers to How is question quality measured in A/B tests? by Jon Ericson from 2017 and according to that the quality steadily decreased over time and is continueing to decrease.

Unwelcoming is a buzzword, it can mean anything and should not be a metric by itself

The surveys are so superficial, nobody knows what unwelcoming really includes. Are downvotes unwelcoming? Is not giving answers or closing questions unwelcoming? What exactly is unwelcoming? And what can be done about it without lowering quality? I really hope that unwelcoming can be broken down into more meaningful subcategories one day.

There has been no engagement over the license change.

There was only the announcement and later a single answer iterating, both heavily downvoted at the time being and nothing really about the motivation and legal perspective of the change. I'm very critical of it and I'm not satisfied by these statements here either.

So, that are the main critical points I see. Which doesn't mean that I disliked all I read, some things I even liked, but I want to wait more and see how this plays out before giving out praise.

Thanks Aaron for doing all this work in such a professional way and thanks to the company for engaging with single persons. Maybe next time they could post on Meta as well. The promise of the CEO to post at least quarterly on Meta, compared to the thousands of posts from Jeff Atwood ... doesn't look so well. Well, the past is the past and that is that.

Source Link
NoDataDumpNoContribution
NoDataDumpNoContribution
  • 10.9k
  • 9
  • 68
  • 154

Iceberg? What iceberg? We don't see any!

The strong contrast between the dire warnings of the Meta community, for example in the answers to the recent contribution of the CEO (the iceberg metaphor), and the missing recognition of any such risk by the company in their official statements as well as the statements given here, is striking. Time will tell if its growth or shrinkage. My money would currently be on shrinkage and I don't think they make a convincing case for the opposite.

A slogan is not a vision. The current mission of StackOverflow is unclear.

"Help to write the script of the future" is so vague that I would not call it a vision or mission statement. It could really be anything and rather sounds like a slogan. I might have a few ideas what it could include, but I might err and it should not be. The mission of StackOverflow should be clear, so that everyone can understand it. I hope they have more details on that and I hope they find ways to explain them. For the moment I would assume that they do not have a mission that is really well defined. (compare with "build a knowledge base of high quality programming Q&A" to see a difference between a slogan and a mission statement)

Do they underestimate the value of the Meta community?

Meta is out of the loop, it doesn't play any formal or significant role any more, neither in the definition of community nor in the quantification of the relationship between company and users.

I'm the first to agree that Meta users are only a tiny subgroup of all users (or even potential users) of StackOverflow, but the value that Meta users offer is far above average. So what does it mean in the end? How can the value of Meta be determined? They seem to have come to the conclusion that the value is rather low in the big picture.

Monitoring quality only doesn't cut it.

They say that they monitor quality of the content, and that is really good, but unfortunately not enough. Quality is dropping and actions to counter it must be taken or the iceberg will come and get us all. The link for the definition of quality refers to How is question quality measured in A/B tests? by Jon Ericson from 2017 and according to that the quality steadily decreased over time and is continueing to decrease.

Unwelcoming is a buzzword, it can mean anything and should not be a metric by itself

The surveys are so superficial, nobody knows what unwelcoming really includes. Are downvotes unwelcoming? Is not giving answers or closing questions unwelcoming? What is exactly is unwelcoming? And what can be done about it without lowering quality? I really hope that unwelcoming can be broken down into more meaningful subcategories one day.

There has been no engagement over the license change.

There was only the announcement and later a single answer iterating, both heavily downvoted at the time being and nothing really about the motivation and legal perspective of the change. I'm very critical of it and I'm not satisfied by these statements here either.

So, that are the main critical points I see. Which doesn't mean that I disliked all I read, some things I even liked, but I want to wait more and see how this plays out before giving out praise.

Thanks Aaron for doing all this work in such a professional way and thanks to the company for engaging with single persons. Maybe next time they could post on Meta as well. The promise of the CEO to post at least quarterly on Meta, compared to the thousands of posts from Jeff Atwood ... doesn't look so well. Well, the past is the past and that is that.