3 ms·
The whole point is, they used to be good, it used to serve a purpose... when they have answers low down or tried to hide all together, they were effectively spa
by wilhil 16y ago
The whole point is, they used to be good, it used to serve a purpose... when they have answers low down or tried to hide all together, they were effectively spamming Google and forcing people to sign up /pay for an answer.
It served a purpose in its time, but SO simply does it better now and EE haven't moved on in years.
And as an "expert" I would rather contribute to a free to ask site helping the public.
- dools 16y agoI disagree with that definition of spam, it's more like "freemium". Pay for the convenience of not having to scroll to the bottom of the page? Or simply pay for the answer if you want it and you don't know about the scrolling thing - it's their right to charge for content. All they're doing is advertising that they have the answer and trying to make sure as many people as possible pay to find out what that answer is, because that's their business model. It's fine if they're irrelevant, it's fine if you'd prefer to be part of a stack exchange community, it's fine if you block them in Google or only search "site:stackoverflow.com how to shot codez" so you never have to look at them again - but the scathing retorts treating these people as valueless carrion who don't even deserve to be on the internet is completely unwarranted! Really, what I object most to is that people are attacking the characters of those involved and calling them slimy and sleazy because they chose a subscription based business model for their Q&A site. A valid decision that has obviously worked. It's not like they're Jamster ringtone club tricking kids into spending thousands on their phone bills to get an animated crazy frog singing the most insipid song ever created, they're just providing a service and trying to get money in return.