Timeline for answer to New site design and philosophy for Stack Overflow: Starting February 24, 2026 at beta.stackoverflow.com by Journeyman Geek
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | comment | added | j08691 | Delete my previous comment all you like. The favicon still looks like shit | |
| Feb 24 at 21:59 | comment | added | Cerbrus | Codidact has never been a serious alternative. It's a ghost town that looks like an inconsistently-styled SO clone. It doesn't have the search engine visibility required to grow, nor the user base to seed the site with content. | |
| Feb 24 at 21:49 | history | edited | chqrlie | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 24 at 4:07 | comment | added | Super Jade | Run the 'new' SO as a separate independent site initially. Advertise it as such, as much as you like, and let it live (or die) on its own merits. Best idea I've heard in a long time! Then we'd still have the real S.O. to refer to :-) | |
| Feb 21 at 18:45 | comment | added | einpoklum | @Lundin: I'm not a web dev and my hands are already full with FOSS responsibilities I'm afraid. But I do give feedback. Plus, I think the "1990s style" - that is, terse, on the same page, nicely aligned, low "noise" when reading answers - is a much better choice. | |
| Feb 21 at 17:13 | comment | added | Lundin | @einpoklum So give feedback about it or join as a dev. At least they are threaded and not 1990s style like here on SO... | |
| Feb 20 at 22:55 | comment | added | einpoklum | @Lundin: TBH, codidact has the insufferable comment threads which open in small windows/frames of their own. But - maybe we will just have to all go there together if SE Inc. flush SO down the toilet. One of the main obstacles to that happening was the traffic here, and now the bar to clear for a similar level of user activity is not that high. If enough avid posters move, we could probably do it. I'm not happy about that prospect but if things are going where it looks they are going it might be the better option. | |
| Feb 19 at 13:42 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @DalijaPrasnikar If the new model works, it gives people a chance to start from scratch without the baggage of the old platform, If it doesn't the old site's still fairly pristine. | |
| Feb 19 at 9:29 | comment | added | Lundin | @starball Because you can phrase it the other way around: why would I want to use a site owned by a predatory evil US-based corporation when you don't have to? If there were no alternatives it would be a different matter, but alternatives do exist. They just need more user activity. | |
| Feb 19 at 9:05 | comment | added | starball Mod | @Lundin at the end of the day, what's the use of asking anyone who simply wants to do something why they want to do it? if SO were doing better or regarded better, I'm sure some people would ask anyone trying to make an "alternate SO" why they want to do it when SO exists. | |
| Feb 19 at 9:00 | comment | added | Lundin | Why start a new site run by this dead weight company though? What good does that do for the users? There is already codidact.com. Unlike this new SO beta, it is mature, it is non-profit, it is open source, it is up & running and actually willing to listen to any feedback we may have. Anyone who likes can contribute as a dev, mod or Q&A user - if there is something you don't like about the site, you can change it yourself or propose the change. | |
| Feb 19 at 8:08 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | @starball What's announced is going to live on the same Q&A database. It's a different UI to the same thing, not a separate thing. This is going to have an impact even if we still have the old UI – bounties will reach less people, closure and reviews will be less accessible to people, … – and this impact will affect people no matter the UI they use. | |
| Feb 19 at 8:03 | comment | added | Dalija Prasnikar Mod | Running a separate site is not the main issue here. The problem is in what comes next. Merging the sites. | |
| Feb 19 at 7:51 | comment | added | starball Mod | I'm confused. the inclusion of the word "initially" in the proposal makes it sound like what the announcement already describes, which makes the following sentence confusing: if it lives, and it's only independent initially, then isn't that also what's already being announced? | |
| Feb 19 at 7:43 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | This is an sound proposal, but let's be honest: It has been made dozens of times already. It has been ignored dozens of times already. The decision to push this to prod didn't happen by accident, it's on purpose. | |
| Feb 19 at 0:35 | comment | added | wizzwizz4 | I wouldn't mind renaming this place something like Stack Overflow Classic, if you must. Even close the gates so that only established users (or those with the association bonus) can still contribute, if you really want to weight the scales in favour of the new site. If the new site does better, great! If (as we predict) it doesn't, you won't have killed and eaten the golden goose. | |
| Feb 18 at 23:46 | comment | added | user1937198 | Also: how do you differentiate yourself from reddit and discord. Why would I answer on new so rather than those platforms? | |
| Feb 18 at 23:45 | history | edited | M-- | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Feb 18 at 23:41 | history | answered | Journeyman Geek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |