5 ms·

I'm still seeing no evidence of success or traction beyond the original Stackoverflow. I'm kinda curious what their burn rate is. I think there are 20 odd empl

by cletus 16y ago

I'm still seeing no evidence of success or traction beyond the original Stackoverflow. I'm kinda curious what their burn rate is. I think there are 20 odd employees now, not all of them engineers. That'll consume $2-3 million a year. One hopes they're simply stockpiling cash while valuations are good. I'm kinda curious what valuation they got. I haven't seen anything about that anywhere.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
As far as I can see it's around $30m. http://vcr.vcexperts.com/vce/news/buzz/archive_view.asp?id=1019 http://vcr.vcexperts.com/vce/news/buzz/archive_view.asp?id=1... Next to Facebook at $50bn that seems almost reasonable... Joking aside it does seem on the high side but in it's favour it is a top 100 site by traffic, it has something resembling a basic revenue model in place, they have a plan for growth which they seem to be executing on reasonably and they are in a space which is under going growth and which clearly has some potential. Yes right now Stack Overflow eclipses the other sites but having one massively successful site to fall back on and that they've learned things from is actually a pretty major asset.
spolsky 16y ago
Thank you cletus; I needed a link to match this one. http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=2724411#xx2724411xx http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=2724411#xx2724411... The burn rate is very low. The valuation is private.
- cletus 16y ago
  This response confuses me. The linked comment is dismissive and, in hindsight, ludicrous, saying that SO won't be around in a year (in 2008). The only reasonable conclusion to reach from this is that your response is a not-so-subtle derision of my statement, basically claiming it is just as ludicrous. Or am I reading this wrong? If not, this confuses me for several reasons: 1. It's very un-HN to be so snarky, even petty. You might be confusing HN for proggit? 2. I love SO, the (original) site. Not once have I ever questioned its viability or value; 3. I have however raised questions about the ability of SE sites to gain traction in their respective verticals, a position thus far backed up by your own numbers [1]. 4. I actually wish you guys well. I'm a big fan. The snarky response to a dispassionate position/question makes me wonder if I've hit a nerve? There are two kinds of comments you'll see on the Internet: uninformed hate/trolling like you linked to. You seem to be suggesting my comment falls into that. I disagree but hey, that's your prerogative. Whatever the case, there's no point in responding to those kinds of comments. The second kind are neutral/positive, arguably informed and generally reasonable. My position is my comment falls into this category. When you respond to those with snarky comments, it actually does you a great disservice, portraying you as petty and small-minded (neither of which, for the record, I believe to be true). Weird morning. [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/FebMonthlyUniques1.png http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/FebMonthlyU...
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    I know who you are because of StackOverflow, and I came to respect your opinion through your answers while I participated there. I have to agree with you. You asked a very tame question and got a very unexpected response, all the more strange because you've been a big contributor to the flagship.
  - logicalmind 16y ago
    My interpretation is that he is going to use your comment, like the one he linked to, as motivation to prove you wrong. Maybe your comment will be printed out and put onto the wall of the SE office.
    - jswinghammer 16y ago
      Considering he's a fairly active user on stackoverflow it seems like kind of a silly thing to do.
- brown9-2 16y ago
  Are there multiple meanings of "burn rate" at play here? I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low" - as in under $1 or 2 million. Of course "low" is a relative term, so it all depends on what the number is you are comparing it against...
  - AgentConundrum 16y ago
    I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low" Expense != Burn Rate A burn rate is just negative cash flow. It's just the negative value found on the end of your income statement. You're only considering salary. They're also bringing in money from their careers offering and their ads. Also, Amazon links get auto-converted into an affiliate link. On a site that gets as many pageviews as they do, these would be not insubstantial revenues, which reduces their burn rate.
- ry0ohki 16y ago
  If the burn rate is low, why so many rounds of funding? What do you plan to do with the funding to make the company profitable?
omaranto 16y ago
MathOverflow is very successful and useful. Of course, there are so few mathematicians, even counting all graduate students, that being a huge success in that community doesn't mean it's very a big site.
- kanak 16y ago
  Is MathOverflow part of Stack Exchange? I ask because Stack Exchange seems to have a different site called "Mathematics Stack Exchange" [1]. http://math.stackexchange.com/ http://math.stackexchange.com/
  - evanhanson 16y ago
    MathOverflow is a hosted instance of the SE stack, while the "Mathematics Stack Exchange" is part of the Stack Exchange network (started in their Area 51, "graduated", etc). The former is mainly for academics and professionals in the field, while the latter is more elementary and geared more towards the average user.
HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
I hang out on the Electronics & Robotics board and even in the few months I've been there, growth is noticeable.
pnathan 16y ago
I use SO regularly. I am not sure where they plan to make their money. I see ads, but I would be surprised if that covers the costs of the labor (I'd love to be surprised here). I'm enjoying using it, and I would hate to see it fall over due to overexpansion/lack of cash flow.
- cpeterso 16y ago
  Joel recently announced "Careers 2.0 by Stack Overflow", which sounds like it could make money: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/ http://careers.stackoverflow.com/

by cletus 16y ago

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago

As far as I can see it's around $30m. http://vcr.vcexperts.com/vce/news/buzz/archive_view.asp?id=1019 http://vcr.vcexperts.com/vce/news/buzz/archive_view.asp?id=1... Next to Facebook at $50bn that seems almost reasonable... Joking aside it does seem on the high side but in it's favour it is a top 100 site by traffic, it has something resembling a basic revenue model in place, they have a plan for growth which they seem to be executing on reasonably and they are in a space which is under going growth and which clearly has some potential. Yes right now Stack Overflow eclipses the other sites but having one massively successful site to fall back on and that they've learned things from is actually a pretty major asset.

spolsky 16y ago

Thank you cletus; I needed a link to match this one. http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=2724411#xx2724411xx http://www.codeproject.com/Lounge.aspx?msg=2724411#xx2724411... The burn rate is very low. The valuation is private.

cletus 16y ago
This response confuses me. The linked comment is dismissive and, in hindsight, ludicrous, saying that SO won't be around in a year (in 2008). The only reasonable conclusion to reach from this is that your response is a not-so-subtle derision of my statement, basically claiming it is just as ludicrous. Or am I reading this wrong? If not, this confuses me for several reasons: 1. It's very un-HN to be so snarky, even petty. You might be confusing HN for proggit? 2. I love SO, the (original) site. Not once have I ever questioned its viability or value; 3. I have however raised questions about the ability of SE sites to gain traction in their respective verticals, a position thus far backed up by your own numbers [1]. 4. I actually wish you guys well. I'm a big fan. The snarky response to a dispassionate position/question makes me wonder if I've hit a nerve? There are two kinds of comments you'll see on the Internet: uninformed hate/trolling like you linked to. You seem to be suggesting my comment falls into that. I disagree but hey, that's your prerogative. Whatever the case, there's no point in responding to those kinds of comments. The second kind are neutral/positive, arguably informed and generally reasonable. My position is my comment falls into this category. When you respond to those with snarky comments, it actually does you a great disservice, portraying you as petty and small-minded (neither of which, for the record, I believe to be true). Weird morning. [1]: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/FebMonthlyUniques1.png http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/FebMonthlyU...
- jedsmith 16y ago
  I know who you are because of StackOverflow, and I came to respect your opinion through your answers while I participated there. I have to agree with you. You asked a very tame question and got a very unexpected response, all the more strange because you've been a big contributor to the flagship.
- logicalmind 16y ago
  My interpretation is that he is going to use your comment, like the one he linked to, as motivation to prove you wrong. Maybe your comment will be printed out and put onto the wall of the SE office.
  - jswinghammer 16y ago
    Considering he's a fairly active user on stackoverflow it seems like kind of a silly thing to do.
brown9-2 16y ago
Are there multiple meanings of "burn rate" at play here? I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low" - as in under $1 or 2 million. Of course "low" is a relative term, so it all depends on what the number is you are comparing it against...
- AgentConundrum 16y ago
  I can't imagine how paying 20 people fulltime salaries is anything approaching "low" Expense != Burn Rate A burn rate is just negative cash flow. It's just the negative value found on the end of your income statement. You're only considering salary. They're also bringing in money from their careers offering and their ads. Also, Amazon links get auto-converted into an affiliate link. On a site that gets as many pageviews as they do, these would be not insubstantial revenues, which reduces their burn rate.
ry0ohki 16y ago
If the burn rate is low, why so many rounds of funding? What do you plan to do with the funding to make the company profitable?

omaranto 16y ago

MathOverflow is very successful and useful. Of course, there are so few mathematicians, even counting all graduate students, that being a huge success in that community doesn't mean it's very a big site.

kanak 16y ago
Is MathOverflow part of Stack Exchange? I ask because Stack Exchange seems to have a different site called "Mathematics Stack Exchange" [1]. http://math.stackexchange.com/ http://math.stackexchange.com/
- evanhanson 16y ago
  MathOverflow is a hosted instance of the SE stack, while the "Mathematics Stack Exchange" is part of the Stack Exchange network (started in their Area 51, "graduated", etc). The former is mainly for academics and professionals in the field, while the latter is more elementary and geared more towards the average user.

HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago

I hang out on the Electronics & Robotics board and even in the few months I've been there, growth is noticeable.

pnathan 16y ago

I use SO regularly. I am not sure where they plan to make their money. I see ads, but I would be surprised if that covers the costs of the labor (I'd love to be surprised here). I'm enjoying using it, and I would hate to see it fall over due to overexpansion/lack of cash flow.

cpeterso 16y ago
Joel recently announced "Careers 2.0 by Stack Overflow", which sounds like it could make money: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/ http://careers.stackoverflow.com/