10 ms·

Joel, I think you have the right product and are sincere about this, but I believe Greg Young, the author of the article, brought up a few good points. I read t

Joel, I think you have the right product and are sincere about this, but I believe Greg Young, the author of the article, brought up a few good points. I read the article and one analogy quickly came to my mind. EE was like AltaVista/Lycos/Infoseek, and Stack Overflow is like the younger version of Google. + The latter is clearly superior in technology (or content) to the other. + The latter makes user happy by giving them real value, whereas the former focused on milking the users for revenue. + The latter made promises to the users (Google: "don't be evil", SO: "contents are the community's property") and the users liked it. + Last but not least, "the competition is only a click away" (Google). "You can start a SO competitor in a heartbeat" (SO). So far so good. But guess what happened to Google? They got good. They got big. They were no longer satisifed with being the king of search. They started Plus. They started saying "If you don't want people to know what you do, you shouldn't do that anyway". They now want your data to be shared among their properties and you cannot opt out. They got jealous of Apple. They got freaked out by Facebook. I don't doubt Google started with a conscience, and a genuine focus to build a better search engine. They succeeded. Wildly. But except for the most hard-core Google believers, I doubt that many people still trust their "Don't be evil" mantra in its absolute. Frankly, do people even say that with a straight face outside of comparison with Microsoft? I love SO and believe in the integrity of Joel and Jeff and others. You guys really rock. But time will change. Tide will change. A tidepool that is fun for little kids could become a fatal trap the very next day (sadly, this happens often). So please keep the warning in mind.

mchanson 15y ago
I think since the data is open if SO goes of the rails in the future someone can take the data and relaunch a new site and compete.
lukeschlather 15y ago
The game is still young even with Google. But as for SO, I would like to see SO close up their data. I don't even think they could legally get away with it. Google has always been closed, so the comparison doesn't make a lot of sense.
SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
> Frankly, do people even say that with a straight face outside of comparison with Microsoft? This week we saw a story in which YouTube (a Google subsidiary) took away a guy's ad revenue because they claimed that someone else had the copyright on random birdsong. http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-copyr.html http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-co... Do people still say "google aren't evil" with a straight face inside of comparison with Microsoft these days? I'm curious what Microsoft has done that compares in, say, the last year. It's not 1999 any more - the biggest company in the world is is Apple ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/09/apple-pips-exxon-as-worlds-biggest-company http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/09/apple-pips-ex... ) , Oracle owns Java and bundles crapware browser toolbars with the download, and Facebook and Google, not Microsoft, are totally dominant in their markets despite Microsoft's efforts. And if you're looking for a company with really crappy practices, there's always Paypal/ebay http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/ http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/
- kwamenum86 15y ago
  That's not evil. Youtube is at the mercy of "big content " and they have to comply with copyright claims. They're not in the business of judging whether a something can be copyrighted - that's a job for the courts.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
    Well, I disagree. it is evil. The argument they "have to comply" due to third parties and presumption-of-infringement laws may be true. If it is, that is beside the point; that doesn't make it a good action.
    - jobu 15y ago
      Why downvote this? It's a valid comment. A 'good' action would be for Google to revoke Rumblefish's takedown ability, and force them to use a real DMCA request. At least that would allow for legal recourse when Rumblefish commits fraud.
aiscott 15y ago
I see a big difference between Google's "don't be evil" and StackOverflow's "contents are the community's property." One is lip-service, a campaign promise: An empty claim that is difficult to quantify; the other is a done deal. The content on SO is licensed right now as a community-commons license. SO even preps a data-dump for you available as a torrent: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/09/creative-commons-data-dump-sep-11/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/09/creative-commons-data-...
- AznHisoka 15y ago
  that's great, but when Google has already indexed the original content and has it ranking high, you able to download the content is an empty victory. They already got the cash
  - gnosis 15y ago
    Making a SO competitor is not the only reason to download the data, just as making a Wikipedia competitor is not the only reason to download Wikipedia data. One very important reason for downloading the data is for simple archiving. If Wikipedia or SO disappear tomorrow, their data will still be in the hands of the public, ready to rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Not so with proprietary, closed data that's never released to the public. Another important reason to download the data is to use it locally and with your own tools. Plenty of people download Wikipedia data for offline browsing. I'm sure the same could be done, at least in theory, with SO data. Yet another reason is to mine the data in ways that the parent website might not allow (due to lack of knowledge, lack of interest, or lack of manpower).
  - tadfisher 15y ago
    There are many examples of SO scrapers that rank higher than SO itself in many cases. Like BigResource.com. So your point is moot. A relevant point is that should SO slap a paywall around their content, anyone can grab the data and create a worthy competitor. Hence the death of ExpertSexChange.
dennisgorelik 15y ago
Not only tide will change, the tide is already changing: Jeff Atwood already quit Stack Overflow. Eventually Joel would do the same. Then new business owners would start milking it more aggressively. But I don't worry about it too much. As soon as Stack Overflow start declining - another, hungrier and more efficient competitor would pop up. Edit: any reason for downvotes?
- jtheory 15y ago
  It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: ExpertSexChange is dead. Now StackOverflow is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
geekboy 15y ago
I like Joel & Jeff, but haven't they already walked down the evil road just a step or two? I remember Jeff stating (correctly) that Google's "don't be evil" doesn't go far. That SO's philosophy was "do good." However, when asked why they don't open source their code, the response boiled down to "well, we won't make money then." Not that any of it's wrong -- and, again I love SO -- but it didn't take either of them very long to forgo their principals in favor of cash.
- simonw 15y ago
  That's quite a strange argument - it's like meeting someone who says that they care deeply about being a good person and saying "well why don't you give all of your money to charity then". Not releasing the source code for StackOverflow is absolutely not a "step down the evil road". If they decided to relicense everyone's existing contributions under a less open license I'd be worried.

mchanson 15y ago

I think since the data is open if SO goes of the rails in the future someone can take the data and relaunch a new site and compete.

lukeschlather 15y ago

The game is still young even with Google. But as for SO, I would like to see SO close up their data. I don't even think they could legally get away with it. Google has always been closed, so the comparison doesn't make a lot of sense.

SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago

> Frankly, do people even say that with a straight face outside of comparison with Microsoft? This week we saw a story in which YouTube (a Google subsidiary) took away a guy's ad revenue because they claimed that someone else had the copyright on random birdsong. http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-copyr.html http://boingboing.net/2012/02/27/rumblefish-claims-to-own-co... Do people still say "google aren't evil" with a straight face inside of comparison with Microsoft these days? I'm curious what Microsoft has done that compares in, say, the last year. It's not 1999 any more - the biggest company in the world is is Apple ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/09/apple-pips-exxon-as-worlds-biggest-company http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/09/apple-pips-ex... ) , Oracle owns Java and bundles crapware browser toolbars with the download, and Facebook and Google, not Microsoft, are totally dominant in their markets despite Microsoft's efforts. And if you're looking for a company with really crappy practices, there's always Paypal/ebay http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/ http://www.regretsy.com/2012/01/03/from-the-mailbag-27/

kwamenum86 15y ago
That's not evil. Youtube is at the mercy of "big content " and they have to comply with copyright claims. They're not in the business of judging whether a something can be copyrighted - that's a job for the courts.
- SideburnsOfDoom 15y ago
  Well, I disagree. it is evil. The argument they "have to comply" due to third parties and presumption-of-infringement laws may be true. If it is, that is beside the point; that doesn't make it a good action.
  - jobu 15y ago
    Why downvote this? It's a valid comment. A 'good' action would be for Google to revoke Rumblefish's takedown ability, and force them to use a real DMCA request. At least that would allow for legal recourse when Rumblefish commits fraud.

aiscott 15y ago

I see a big difference between Google's "don't be evil" and StackOverflow's "contents are the community's property." One is lip-service, a campaign promise: An empty claim that is difficult to quantify; the other is a done deal. The content on SO is licensed right now as a community-commons license. SO even preps a data-dump for you available as a torrent: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/09/creative-commons-data-dump-sep-11/ http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/09/creative-commons-data-...

AznHisoka 15y ago
that's great, but when Google has already indexed the original content and has it ranking high, you able to download the content is an empty victory. They already got the cash
- gnosis 15y ago
  Making a SO competitor is not the only reason to download the data, just as making a Wikipedia competitor is not the only reason to download Wikipedia data. One very important reason for downloading the data is for simple archiving. If Wikipedia or SO disappear tomorrow, their data will still be in the hands of the public, ready to rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Not so with proprietary, closed data that's never released to the public. Another important reason to download the data is to use it locally and with your own tools. Plenty of people download Wikipedia data for offline browsing. I'm sure the same could be done, at least in theory, with SO data. Yet another reason is to mine the data in ways that the parent website might not allow (due to lack of knowledge, lack of interest, or lack of manpower).
- tadfisher 15y ago
  There are many examples of SO scrapers that rank higher than SO itself in many cases. Like BigResource.com. So your point is moot. A relevant point is that should SO slap a paywall around their content, anyone can grab the data and create a worthy competitor. Hence the death of ExpertSexChange.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

Not only tide will change, the tide is already changing: Jeff Atwood already quit Stack Overflow. Eventually Joel would do the same. Then new business owners would start milking it more aggressively. But I don't worry about it too much. As soon as Stack Overflow start declining - another, hungrier and more efficient competitor would pop up. Edit: any reason for downvotes?

jtheory 15y ago
It is now official. Netcraft has confirmed: ExpertSexChange is dead. Now StackOverflow is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

geekboy 15y ago

I like Joel & Jeff, but haven't they already walked down the evil road just a step or two? I remember Jeff stating (correctly) that Google's "don't be evil" doesn't go far. That SO's philosophy was "do good." However, when asked why they don't open source their code, the response boiled down to "well, we won't make money then." Not that any of it's wrong -- and, again I love SO -- but it didn't take either of them very long to forgo their principals in favor of cash.

simonw 15y ago
That's quite a strange argument - it's like meeting someone who says that they care deeply about being a good person and saying "well why don't you give all of your money to charity then". Not releasing the source code for StackOverflow is absolutely not a "step down the evil road". If they decided to relicense everyone's existing contributions under a less open license I'd be worried.