3 ms·
This reporting is so strange... > Based in New York, closely held Stack Overflow operates a question-and-answer website used by software developers and other t
by MauranKilom 5y ago
This reporting is so strange...
> Based in New York, closely held Stack Overflow operates a question-and-answer website used by software developers and other types of workers such as financial professionals and marketers who increasingly need coding skills. It attracts more than 100 million visitors monthly, the company says.
I'm not sure I could sell SO any worse if I tried. It spends more time describing a niche audience than the actual product ("a website used by developers"). Wow. Contrast with how they word the description of Prosus:
> Prosus, one of Europe’s most valuable tech companies, is best known as the largest shareholder in Chinese internet and videogaming giant Tencent Holdings Ltd. Listed in Amsterdam, Prosus signaled its appetite for deal making when it sold a small portion of its equity stake in Tencent in April for $14.6 billion. The Stack Overflow deal ranks among Prosus’ biggest acquisitions.
There's several superlatives you could use for SO, but it's more important to have a hedged form of "most valuable" for the investor I guess.
Or is the reporter just simply uninformed? I don't get it.
- frakkingcylons 5y ago> Stack Overflow operates a question-and-answer website used by software developers That's spot on in my opinion, though I guess a bit dry. I suppose they could've included the traffic numbers or Alexa ranking to highlight how much it's used? I don't really see how this is an example of uninformed reporting, that description seems right on the money. EDIT: The article actually does include traffic numbers.
- MauranKilom 5y agoI'm not saying the reporting is wrong, but that it completely fails to remark on how essential SO is to tons of developers. When they describe the investor as "one of the most valuable", why couldn't they bear to describe SO as "the largest QA site for developers"? Is it so important for readers of WSJ that the extremely tangential relation to "financial professionals and marketers" is explained? That's what confuses me.