3 ms·

StackExchange as a platform is going to face an uphill battle if they don't rethink their entire strategy. The Area51 'vetting' process is an unnecessary barri

StackExchange as a platform is going to face an uphill battle if they don't rethink their entire strategy. The Area51 'vetting' process is an unnecessary barrier to creating new and interesting 'exchanges' (I guess it makes sense from a cost perspective), and they need to adjust the user experience for the non-geeky universe.

edanm 16y ago
As they view it, it's not an unnecessary barrier. It's there for a few specific reasons: 1) Make sure there is enough interest to get the site going. 2) Build up momentum for the grand opening. Don't forget, all these Stack Exchange sites are thought up by the community, but then deployed and paid for by Stack Exchange. They don't want hundreds of "ghost towns" around the web, they want to only create a new site if they think there's a reasonable chance it will grow into a site as vibrant as Stack Overflow. That's what the whole process is about. Time will tell if it's a good process.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  Yes, they're paying for the infrastructure. That fact is not lost on me. But think about the real costs. Assuming that they have a nice scalable multi-tenant design, a ghost town is not going to have a lot of content or users, which means only a small hit on their database. Yes, tons of ghost towns add up to significant costs, but that can be easily fixed with some simple rules around inactivity over a set period of time. Wayne Gretzky famously said "You miss 100% of the shots you never take." StackExchange is taking a 'rifle' approach. More power to them. My own personal opinion is that a 'shotgun' approach could result in more successful sites than the one they're taking. Just my 2 cents.
  - mmelin 16y ago
    They actually tried the "shotgun" approach first, but decided to move to this model earlier this year. They describe the reasons behind this here: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-excha... I think this diagram sums it up great: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/se2-venn-diagram.png http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/se2-venn-di...
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    That was a completely different strategy. Their proposed high prices had them wondering why nobody was biting. I'm talking about a shotgun approach while going free.
    - mudetroit 16y ago
      Jeff has actually spoken about this a few times. The ghost sites do have a cost beyond just resources. The stack exchange format only really works when you get a certain critical mass of people to ask questions. They have found if you get people together and people ask questions then people will come to answer them. The trick is getting enough people together to start asking questions. When you have an empty site and someone sees the last question was weeks or months ago they just browse away. Helping getting the community over that initial hurdle is important.

edanm 16y ago

As they view it, it's not an unnecessary barrier. It's there for a few specific reasons: 1) Make sure there is enough interest to get the site going. 2) Build up momentum for the grand opening. Don't forget, all these Stack Exchange sites are thought up by the community, but then deployed and paid for by Stack Exchange. They don't want hundreds of "ghost towns" around the web, they want to only create a new site if they think there's a reasonable chance it will grow into a site as vibrant as Stack Overflow. That's what the whole process is about. Time will tell if it's a good process.

slantyyz 16y ago
Yes, they're paying for the infrastructure. That fact is not lost on me. But think about the real costs. Assuming that they have a nice scalable multi-tenant design, a ghost town is not going to have a lot of content or users, which means only a small hit on their database. Yes, tons of ghost towns add up to significant costs, but that can be easily fixed with some simple rules around inactivity over a set period of time. Wayne Gretzky famously said "You miss 100% of the shots you never take." StackExchange is taking a 'rifle' approach. More power to them. My own personal opinion is that a 'shotgun' approach could result in more successful sites than the one they're taking. Just my 2 cents.
- mmelin 16y ago
  They actually tried the "shotgun" approach first, but decided to move to this model earlier this year. They describe the reasons behind this here: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-exchange/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/04/changes-to-stack-excha... I think this diagram sums it up great: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/se2-venn-diagram.png http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/se2-venn-di...
- slantyyz 16y ago
  That was a completely different strategy. Their proposed high prices had them wondering why nobody was biting. I'm talking about a shotgun approach while going free.
  - mudetroit 16y ago
    Jeff has actually spoken about this a few times. The ghost sites do have a cost beyond just resources. The stack exchange format only really works when you get a certain critical mass of people to ask questions. They have found if you get people together and people ask questions then people will come to answer them. The trick is getting enough people together to start asking questions. When you have an empty site and someone sees the last question was weeks or months ago they just browse away. Helping getting the community over that initial hurdle is important.