
Stack Overflow for Teams - cheath
https://stackoverflow.com/teams
======
parvenu74
Seems like "yet another tool to try to offset the problem of requirements,
code, and architectural decisions not being adequately documented for future
staff to understand." Sometimes I wonder if software teams should add
technical writers embed with developers, architects, QA, and BA assets to
actually document All The Things and keep documentation up to date. Yes, that
will mean re-writing documentations as people change their minds in response
to business needs but it would provide an historical record that answers "How
the hell did our systems end up looking like this?" which seems to plague
every organization that hires programmers to write custom code. Sometimes it's
hard to give the developers who wrote the code the benefit of the doubt that
they made the wisest decision based on all known variables at the time. I'm
certainly guilty of questioning the intelligence, breeding, motivations, etc
of the programmer of an app I had to modify once... only to realize that _I_
had written the code in question four years previously. Eventually I
remembered why the feature had to be coded that way and wrote a 1200 word
comment section explaining why the feature was written the way it was and how
one should orient their state of mind to understand and edit the logic. And I
further apologized for the clusterfuck of code that the feature was and left
my personal email address in case a future programmer wanted to berate me for
it. And three years later I did get an email from someone saying they had been
laughing for ten minutes because they had gone from "WTF?" to gradual
understanding as they read through my verbose description of why... ending
with laughter that I was willing to take whatever vitriol they had left over
via email so they could vent and get back to work. Whether that dev updated
the comments to reflect their changes is something to which I have no answer.

~~~
dbingham
Pushing the need for clear documentation is a battle I find myself frequently
fighting. Many devs just aren't sure how to prioritize it or write it, and
even worse, many seem to have absorbed the idea that code should be self
documenting and that comments are a code smell.

Whoever is responsible for the idea that comments are code smell deserves to
receive all future vitriolic emails from anyone who ever stumbles into a
complex nest of undocumented code and has to figure out what the hell they're
looking at.

~~~
zip1234
Whoever thinks comments are a code smell has probably stumbled into a nest of
documented code where the documentation was out of date and didn't refer to
the latest code in question, causing intense confusion. Comments can certainly
be helpful but there is nothing to guarantee that they will be up to date or
even useful.

~~~
zamber
Indeed. Had to port a 2k perl script with gigantic comment blocks written in
German. Eventually I recreated the intended functionality with ~150 lines of
JS after painfully google translating everything. JIRA references would
probably be lost completely by the time I worked on it.

~~~
vgy7ujm
So it was less than 100 lines of actual needed Perl code in that script? ;)

~~~
zamber
More around 800 of sloc. At least I haven't had to preserve bugs. There were
also red herrings in the comments, leftovers as the script was tweaked to fit
business requirements. Imagine blocks like this spat around randomly between
code blocks...

    
    
      ###############################################################################
      #                                                                             #
      #                               DAS IST CODE                                  #
      #                                                                             #
      ###############################################################################
      #                                                                             #
      # Das macht Dinge. Ja, ich habe diesen Übersetzer eingegeben, nur um etwas    #
      # einfügen zu können. Hoffentlich ist dies nach einer doppelten Übersetzung   #
      # noch lesbar. Wenn nicht, dann fick es einfach. Nett, es geht gut zurück.    #
      #                                                                             #
      # Natürlich wurde Interpunktion und Rechtschreibung gebrochen. Es war um das  #
      # Jahr 11, als der Übersetzer nicht über die gesamte Politur der künstlichen  #
      # Intelligenz verfügte, so dass eins von acht Wörtern nicht übersetzt wurde.  #
      # Zum Glück funktionierte es sogar mit Code, obwohl es nicht zu kompliziert   #
      # war. Andererseits sind Deutsche ziemlich zurückhaltend (oder waren, als     #
      # diese besondere Monstrosität gemacht wurde), um Englisch zu lernen, so dass #
      # selbst Variablen in der Muttersprache sein mussten. Ich verließ das         #
      # Unternehmen rund 3 Monate, weil ich eine Legacy Monstrocity (es war nur ein #
      # gehacktes Addon-Skript, das von einem Plugin-System in einem                #
      # Unternehmens-CMS lief) reparierte, war nicht meine Sache.                   #
      #                                                                             #
      ###############################################################################

------
bluedino
There's nothing like writing up an Evernote or Wiki article on some feature,
process, or how/why something works... and then nobody on the team ever
reading.

I love writing documentation from time to time. But this helps by getting you
to write documentation for only things people are asking about.

~~~
colshrapnel
SO is bad with search, entirely giving it away for Google to find relevant
answers. In a wiki, at least I can follow the structure to find relevant
pages, but in the heap of badly phrased questions it will be a pain to find
anything relevant.

I love writing documentation too, but from years participating on Stack
Overflow I found it most unreliable for the purpose. As I once quipped,
"Imagine Wikipedia where there are several hundred articles on the New York
city. And one that Google links first is copy-pasted from Encyclopedia
Britannica, 1913. And every single day several kids from elementary school
start a new one."

SO is torn between essentially ambiguous goals, providing fast on-site answers
and being a reusable knowledge base. And it's good with the latter only
because of Google. Without Google it will be no better than fast on-site
answers on Slack.

~~~
spike021
I think SO and pure documentation would serve two separate purposes. Sometimes
documentation is better for something like an internal library API or related
information. But on the other hand, sometimes having a an SO-like place where
I can go look up a question related to a quick thing I'm trying to do would be
useful. Say I don't remember the process to build the latest version of a Java
package and upload it to an internal repository or something, it might be
quicker to find a related quick Q&A type doc for that rather than digging into
dense documentation on a variety of things.

~~~
colshrapnel
And here comes the question of maintainability. For the code, we are trying to
have a single repository to avoid duplicates and to have just a single place
to make changes. That's what a wiki is good for. Whereas for such a dispersed
knowledge base it would be hard to keep all these atomic questions up to date.

The front page for Teams boasts it's better than your "stale wikis and lost
emails" but in reality there are much more stale answers on SO than anywhere
else.

------
makecheck
Over the years I’ve concluded, reluctantly, that the _ONLY_ documentation
solutions that matter are the code, revision control logs and issue trackers.

Create massive comment blocks to explain things if you have to but put it all
there in the code, next to the things that matter. Then it has half a chance
of still being accurate. And, you know exactly _where_ the documentation is.
If the code becomes obsolete and is removed, you naturally strip out
documentation that is no longer relevant at the same time.

Revision control log messages are _important_. I _so_ hate lazy messages; if
you change 5 files in random ways and your message is “fixed bug”, I think you
should be fired. If it’s in the issue tracker, your log had better mention the
number. Add a paragraph daring to _explain_ what the hell you did so I can
read a sensible log history and figure out what happened when.

Issue trackers are useful for capturing every relevant detail, especially new
information that is found while the bug is being investigated. The bug might
come up again, and details can help to sort it out.

~~~
sametmax
How do you fit deployment doc in code ? And tutorials ? General graphs of the
architecture ?

Because an API reference is a very poor doc.

~~~
aeorgnoieang
Ideally your deployments _are_ code. And tutorials are part of your website
'code', or integrated into your project (and thus 'code'). General graphs of
the architecture would be docs in your code repo (and thus 'code' too). I'll
admit tho that it's pretty sensible to just not consider some of those as
'code' and thus conclude that documentation outside of the code is important
too.

But the original commenter is also probably right that 'second hand'
documentation is probably the least accurate.

------
coryfklein
I'm excited at the potential this has to organize your own internal
information that normally lies stagnant on a wiki (or heaven forbid, email)
with no context of whether it's still valid or useful to anyone. It seems like
it would be particularly useful for organizations with a distributed work
force.

On the other hand, so much of StackOverflow's value comes from the economies
of scale at hand, and I'm uncertain how well the model scales down to small
sized teams or even medium sized companies.

~~~
klenwell
There was an open source version of Stack Overflow that I set up internally a
few years ago at a previous company. I was the only one on the team who
actively used it, but even then I found it useful as it was a place to
squirrel away these useful little pieces of information you come across and
don't know quite what to do with. I ended up coming back to find stuff I'd put
there a few times and was starting to refer others to questions here and
there.

Then after a couple months, just as it felt like it was getting some traction,
the server got wiped out accidentally by our server team and there were no
backups. I never got around to putting it back up.

I hope not having your knowledge base arbitrarily wiped out by careless admins
would be a feature of this service.

~~~
Grae
What tool did you use, and would you recommend it? I'm considering that route
for project-relevant questions my students have.

~~~
klenwell
I believe it was this:

[https://github.com/dzone/osqa](https://github.com/dzone/osqa)

But not positive. I vaguely remember it was a Python product. Not sure I can
recommend it. I remember it not being nearly as polished as SO and not sure
it's being actively maintained.

It's a shame that you can't use Stack Overflow itself constructively for this.
I think Stack Overflow usage would be a great lesson for any introductory
class. Just teaching new devs how to write a good Stack Overflow question is
an invaluable step in problem-solving, even if they never post it.

Unfortunately, at the moment, I fear a good part of that lesson would be "the
talk" about navigating the tricky culture of Stack Overflow.

------
Shank
So the biggest reason why I can see this succeeding is because of onboarding.
In fact, I'd say that's the killer feature. It takes one person going through
a development environment setup process to be really useful. They'll ask a lot
of questions, get the answers...and then the setup process is suddenly really
well documented without anyone having to go through the trouble of documenting
it without knowing what to document.

Since new employees are expected to ask questions on how to get things
working, using SO for Teams is natural. Then, explanations that would normally
be sent in pieces over IM can be recorded.

The information still ages, but aged information on the right track is
infinitely better than nothing at all.

------
cryptos
Atlassian's "Questions for Confluence" is only half the price.
[https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/questions](https://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/questions)

~~~
tedivm
It's only "half the price" if you ignore the cost of Confluence itself. The
Atlassian people are also historically awful at building out features that
make hosting their products easier (for example, they've ignored a request for
a "read only" mode for about 12 years now [1]).

The simple fact that it is a product that is made by someone other than
Atlassian is a huge selling point.

[1]
[https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFSERVER-6390?page=com.a...](https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFSERVER-6390?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Aall-
tabpanel)

~~~
farkas
FYI that we're implementing read-ony mode in our data center product line, and
we've also got various knowledge base articles for how to achieve this should
you need it:

    
    
      https://confluence.atlassian.com/confkb/how-to-make-confluence-read-only-311920317.html
    

In any software, you've always got old requests that haven't been filled.
We're just public about it.

StackOverflow has the same issue here:
[https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/feature-
requ...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/feature-
request?sort=votes&pageSize=15)

Many top requests are 9+ years old.

~~~
Noumenon72
I have never had the opportunity to tell anyone at Atlassian how much I love
Confluence. There are so many cool technical feats that improve my experience,
like being able to open an embedded spreadsheet in Excel and having it update
the version on the page when you hit save. So many things that aren't natural
for the web are seamless, like indent levels and accepting pasted images. So
many organizational tools like excerpts and child view macro. So many
usability features like attachment versioning and keyboard shortcuts.

It takes a great company to make such a great product so easy to use. Thank
you.

------
tekkk
My question is, is this better than your self-hosted wiki? At least that's
cheaper and isn't a vendor lock-in. Sure wiki doesn't have the best possible
UI and the UX might be too so-and-so. If I were in a position to buy this kind
of service I'd still want something more out of it.

Maybe if it offered a way to export Slack threads into SO as questions so they
wouldn't get lost. Sure you could generate those questions manually from the
thread and maybe prune them a little but I've found mostly people are too lazy
for extra-work like that. Anyway that's my first impression, take it as you
want.

~~~
pugworthy
If your goal is to post problems and associated solutions, yes it is better
than a Wiki.

First, it gives you a template to post in - you are not given a blank page and
told "document this"

Second, it encourages you to document single, smaller, focused pieces of
information. You're not being asked or expected to write a multipage document,
you're being asked to write a single entry in what essentially is a crowd
sourced FAQ.

One thing the SO approach also does is that it respects the content that each
person posts. If I post an answer, only I can modify it. Nobody will modify my
answer to reflect what they think, and make it seem as if I was presenting a
different solution that what I suggested. What people with alternative ideas
CAN do though is post alternative answers, or comment on my answer with
suggested changes.

~~~
colshrapnel
If your goal is to post, then SO is excellent. But if your goal is also to
read, there are questions. Nobody ever tried to use Stack Overflow without
Google yet. given all its bell and whistles are intended for those who want to
post, there are questions yet to answer.

~~~
KajMagnus
I use SO without Google sometimes, in this way: I search for a phrase or tag,
and read the 20 - 30 highest upvoted questions & answers about that — and I
learn a lot, sometimes things that I didn't know, that I ought to know.

------
colshrapnel
Stack Overflow largely relies on Google Search, but for private teams it won't
be available. And internal search is just unreliable.

Also I fail to see how answers on SO for Teams are supposed to be less "stale"
than your old wiki articles.

For me, at least our corporate wiki is more organized, without duplicates,
whereas Stack Overflow's modus operandi is largely relies on creating
thousands of duplicated questions.

------
vortico
>team member has been fired for posting off-topic question

------
baud147258
Do you think we'll get the "closed as primarly opinion-based" flag squad on SO
for Teams too?

~~~
coryfklein
Actually this brings up one of the things I like the most about this SO for
Teams idea - it could also be used as a sort of slant.co substitute, where a
large dev team is trying to settle on a common programming language or
persistence framework, and each person can register their opinion or vote on
an existing one.

After N days, the whole group decides to select the option with the most
votes. Since voting is anonymous, everyone can give their honest opinion, or
even vote for multiple.

If you don't like the "opinion-based" close reason, you can just not use it on
your team.

~~~
baud147258
It was a weak joke concerning the usual complaints about SO and because I
thought it was an on-premise offer, not integrated in the main SO site. As
said below, there's no flagging in SO Teams.

If you need anonymous voting for decision concerning language/framework, I
think you have a big problem: it would mean individuals are afraid of voicing
their opinions regarding a technical choice and that's not something that can
just be solved with a tool.

------
gchp
An open source alternative I've used in the past is Askbot:
[https://askbot.com/](https://askbot.com/)

It's built on Django, and covers all of the standard Q&A features that I've
needed to use.

~~~
mikhailt
Site doesn't work, refuses to connect. Adding www. tells me it is an invalid
cert.

------
baud147258
Joel wrote a blog post about it, detailing how it currently works:

[https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2018/05/03/announcing-
stack-o...](https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2018/05/03/announcing-stack-
overflow-for-teams/)

It was already linked on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16985574](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16985574)

------
Clanan
I'm sure I'm ignorant of other reasonable options, but this one is quite
appealing as a small co, even if only used by one person. Just yesterday I was
thinking about better ways to store easy-to-find answers to those dang tech
issues that pop up once every six months. "How do I install pip manually on OS
X with xyz constraints?"

------
shusson
I'm confused by the pricing. Is it $10 a month for up to 10 users and then
additional $5 per new user?

~~~
cheath
Sorry for the confusion. Your assumption is correct. $10 month total for the
first 10 users (so, regardless of whether you have 3 users or 9 users, it's
still $10/month). And then $5 per new user after that.

~~~
shusson
thanks I know you're probably targeting larger companies but for small teams
there's a big difference between $10 a month and $5 per user per month :p

~~~
cheath
absolutely :)

------
sdsdsdsdsdsds
Slightly offtopic, I recently looked at all top free internet
websites/services that I use and wondered which of them I would miss if
advertising dollars dry up. For me, it turned out to be stackoverflow and
Google. I truly hope stackoverflow is a profitable venture at this point. I
hope they have been trying various avenues to make money but no o no one has
any info on profitability. Job ads pay well, but there is fierce competition
there.

------
rwilsonperkin
We've been running this in beta for a couple months now, happy to answer
questions about it. The SO team has been super helpful during the process.

~~~
nwsm
What did you have in place before this (wiki, Slack, Yammer or something like
it) if anything?

Is this better than finding the right person to ask, or posting in slack or
something?

In my org we have a wiki on topics and if that fails an "experts" list with
people to contact for further help. There is also a yammer group for asking
questions, but that is rarely used. I think this could be helpful, but whether
or not it's worth the cost would be a question for someone else.

~~~
rwilsonperkin
Our documentation is split up between markdown files in-repo and a wiki
(Confluence) with lots of assorted information. Interestingly we do the same
kind of thing with an "experts" list, but with a focus for on-call engineers
so they know who to contact if something's broken.

A lot of people still have a natural inclination to just post their questions
in chat - probably because it's lower friction than typing up a question and
then posting _that_ in chat. We've been trying to shift this by re-posting
people's questions in SO and answering them there. It's been mostly helpful,
but I'd say we still have a ways to go in shifting people towards SO.

------
cryptos
Can this be connected to Active Directory?

~~~
cheath
not yet. but supporting SSO options is on our near-term roadmap. however
enterprise edition does support AD/SAML out of the box.
stackoverflow.com/enterprise

------
nkg
I have thought about building this so many times. I think there is a need for
it, particularly for non-technical teams where processes don't evolve that
fast, but adoption will be hard to ignite.

~~~
pugworthy
Agreed - this is for many kinds of people, not just technical people.

------
yehosef
This is an interesting play but doesn't seem like a good fit.

The examples on the front page: "how do I connect to our database", "what kind
of email templates do we have". Are these questions that you're going to get
multiple answers for and I'm going to upvote the best and/or select one as the
"selected" answer. I would think this would be a sign of dysfunction in most
cases. And how does the gamification play into it? (maybe it's a secret bus-
factor detector.)

It seems like a regular wiki/knowledge base would be a better fit for this
kind of knowledge. How would the SO structure help.

A related note, I wonder if you can disable the "Soup Nazis"[1] feature or
it's too deeply embedded in the psyche of the product.

[1][https://www.embeddedrelated.com/showarticle/741.php](https://www.embeddedrelated.com/showarticle/741.php)

~~~
shusson
I think searching and linking to existing questions (internally and
externally) would be useful.

~~~
JasonFruit
The useful parts you name sound a lot like a wiki.

~~~
always_good
SO is a wiki. Except that instead of writing aimless documentation, you can
document exactly what people are asking about.

Which makes it better than just about every wiki I've used at a company or
Github repo which just get out of date because they are so arbitrary and
unfocused.

------
amelius
How easy is it to migrate your data out of it and into something else?

~~~
jpitz
This was essentially my first question - who owns the data?

------
krupan
Has anyone tried one of the open source clones sich as question2answer?

[http://www.question2answer.org](http://www.question2answer.org)

------
tarr11
So much of the core mechanics of SO relies on SEO and a community of volunteer
moderators, neither if which really exist in a corporation.

I suppose if a company had a paid librarian function, this could be
successful. But in that case, even a normal wiki would probably work.

I seem to remember an article from Joel or Jeff many years ago describing why
this exact model won't work. Can't seem to find it now though.

------
pugworthy
Pushing my message again, but if you've not done so in a while, visit
[https://stackexchange.com/sites#](https://stackexchange.com/sites#) and look
at how many utterly non-technical topics are covered by this model. The
application of the system is about far more than just traditional software
development.

------
pugworthy
I think it's a mistake to look at this from the perspective of software
developers. It's called "Teams" because it's for teams - which can be anything
from software developers to facilities maintenance people. It's for teams that
have questions (and answers), not for software developers who have questions
(and answers).

By way of experience with this, we run an internally written Stack Overflow
clone of sorts for a large industrial printing product we make. It's meant for
people in our organization who have questions and are looking for answers. And
as such, there are no "wrong" questions.

For example, someone might ask, "I'm traveling to the San Diego site - what's
the most convenient hotel to stay at?", and create a new tag for "san-diego",
"recommendations", and "hotels". Or they might post about "Top-of-form mark
detected too close to the previous frame" using tags like "print-engine" and
"top-of-form".

For us, both types of questions are very valid and "on topic" questions to
post in our internal stack.

When we first launched our stack, we imagined it as being a kind of "crowd
sourced internal knowledge capture" tool. But a real evolution in our thinking
has occurred, and we've found that most people use it to post questions and
answers at the same time. In other words, they've solved a problem and want to
share the solution. And SO's "question/problem statement" followed by
"answer/solution" template and framework makes it very easy for them to share
this knowledge. Contrast with a wiki for example, where they are presented
with a blank page and told to "document this issue".

One feature we are considering is the idea of wizards for certain types of
posts. For example, if you are posting an answer about equipment work that
requires opening electrical panels, we probably should have a warning about
only doing this if you are certified for it. So the wizard idea might say, "Is
this a solution that relates to electrical safety?" Checking yes automatically
appends some boilerplate text with a caution about electrical certification.

We've also found that the voting up/down feature isn't that useful. People
just don't do that voting stuff, nor do they really care about their
reputation. What we are going to do is replace the vote system with a simple,
"Did this answer help you?" type approach. It's literally the same thing, but
with a different way of asking it. Because we don't actually do "down" votes,
a "Yes" is a vote up, and a "No" prompts the user to post a comment explaining
why it didn't help them, assuming it was what they were looking for. Was the
answer not clear? Was it wrong? Did it not work? Is the information out of
date? This kind of feedback (via comments) will help answer authors evolve
their content to be better.

------
pknerd
At least the frequency of questions getting closed without any sane reason
will be lesser than Stackoverflow.com

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Continuously surprised at the lack of basecamp in these conversations. Seems
like still the best tool to me.

------
Johnny555
"Rest easy knowing that your Team’s data is secured in a dedicated network and
logically separated into its own SQL schema. Learn more about our security
policy. "

If its using logical separation on a shared SQL server, then is it really a
"dedicated network"?

------
Kiro
I want to create a public Stack Overflow, just using the engine but rebranded
as my own QA site.

~~~
privacypoller
They used to do something similar to this, but then co-opted all the popular
sites and shut down the rest. They had a parenting one that was pretty
successful - probably because Jon Skeet was prolific on that one as well.

------
cwyers
I feel like holding out single sign-on for a separate Enterprise tier priced
at "Contact a sale rep for details!" is a mistake. Heck, I feel like any
"contact a sales rep for details!" pricing tier is a mistake.

------
EGreg
Why use this when Discourse is free? It is an open source product that lets
you store all the data in your own database. And it’s by the same guys, too.

~~~
coryfklein
Because Discourse is a message board, not a Q&A site?

Not bashing Discourse at all. In fact I wish I saw it in the wild more often.

~~~
EGreg
A forum is nearly there. With open source, all you need is a third party
plugin to turn it into what you want:

[https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-solved-accepted-
answe...](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-solved-accepted-answer-
plugin/30155)

~~~
coryfklein
That plugin hardly turns Discourse into a full fledged Q&A site. It merely
adds a button to mark a specific post as "The Answer". While that may be
sufficient for many, there is a reason that StackOverflow has tags, tailored
search, reputation, closing, etc. That's what they are selling with that $5
price tag.

~~~
Can_Not
It's funny you refute that forum add-on, as it is a good add-on, but it's also
just an add-on. A band-aid, not a solution. Too often I see the selected
answer "pulled up" to the top, but it's actually just the tail-end of a longer
conversation, where the context of the conversation is critical to
understanding the answer itself. Not to mention that comment responses (to
both answers and the question itself) are interwoven together like a big bowl
of spaghetti.

Meanwhile, I think StackOverflow, while great, is not living up to it's
potential. I'm currently brainstorming/prototyping a StackOverflow alternative
that covers the Q&A scenario, but adds support for more advanced features. If
a question is opinion based, then you could have answers categorized into
sides. Yes or No would be a common example. React vs VueJS vs Ember could be
some side options in a question. OOP vs FP vs Procedural could be sides for
another question. What is the right way to X can have a different answer
depending on your "side", or it could be that the sides themselves are in
disagreement. Sometimes it's nice to see and understand why another side
prefers X. Let both side's top answers stand side by side at the top. Another
idea is improved connecting of similar, but unmergable, questions. Another
idea to connect questions by dependencies. A user could select some premises
before asking, debates could be derailed less often by linking debunked
arguements to their open debate page where there could be a large chain of
custody on each element and nested prerequisite showing why it's wrong.
Prerequisite could also be a word definition ("theory" is a random shower
thought in some contexts, but in other contexts it's an explanation backed by
so much evidence it's a strong candidate for established fact that could only
be replaced by an expanded explaination, not an alternative one).
Prerequisites could also be an axiom. In addition to questions, there could
also be "claims". "Answers" to claims would basically be supporting evidence
or refuting evidence.

~~~
EGreg
What is a way to reach you?

I thought of making a site like this called
[https://findmeaning.in](https://findmeaning.in)

And basically it would consist of claims and evidence linking to other claims
— and automatically calculating scores based on votes for claims. The hardest
problem would be to prevent sybil attacks, collusion and so on, that could
compromise the voting system. Perhaps the score system would need to be based
on something entirely different than voting, such as random polling to
leverage the wisdom of the crowd
([https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/04/02/297839429/...](https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/04/02/297839429/-so-
you-think-youre-smarter-than-a-cia-agent))

If you are interested, message me greg+hn then the at symbol then qbix.com

------
tracker1
Was anyone else hoping to see a Stack Overflow plugin for "Microsoft Teams"?
That would have been very cool.

------
nwsm
I'm not sure if it's worth it, but this struck a chord with me:

>No more digging through stale wikis

------
dandigangi
Totally misread the title and thought it was for "Teens". LOL

~~~
mathgeek
The concept of "Stack Overflow for Teens" seems like a parody goldmine.

