
All-Star Team Backs StackOverflow to Go Beyond Programming Questions - aditya
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/stackoverflow_business_funding.php
======
raganwald
The closing paragraph:

Spolsky says that the easiest way he's heard people explain the difference
between Stack Overflow and old fashioned forums is that when you go to Stack
Overflow, the right answer is at the top of the page. That's a charming way to
put it and it's sure to be interesting to see the team that's assembled take a
shot at building that kind of experience around other kinds of topics.

Now THAT is an elevator pitch: _Stack Overflow is just like old fashioned
forums, only when you go to Stack Overflow, the right answer is at the top of
the page_.

~~~
melling
That's correct. And the iPad is just a tablet notebook like the one from
Microsoft in 2000.

[http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/nov00/11-13...](http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/nov00/11-13tabletpc.mspx)

And the iPhone is really just a cleaned up smart phone.

StackOverFlow took an old idea, cleaned it up and made a better product. Seems
pretty simple after the fact.

Getting the small things right in a product really makes a big difference.
StackOverFlow isn't perfect (and neither was the iPhone or iPad) but they got
a good minimal viable product and now they're off to the races.

~~~
klochner
I'm all for Ries, Blanks, lean, mvp, etc. etc., but all the lean jargon is
getting overused and abused.

------
slantyyz
I expected Google to buy them up. StackOverflow really has become a
destination for answers, especially after all the negative goodwill that
Experts Exchange and to a smaller degree IT Toolbox have built up by creating
barriers to viewing answers.

~~~
jessriedel
I'm still looking for words for describing how StackOverflow is so much better
than it's competitors. I think it's more than just ill-will for Experts
Exchange (though that's undoubtedly a factor). StackOverflow is built _right_.
It runs smooth and the barrier to joining is damn near as low as possible. But
what else gives it that extra something?

~~~
felideon
Reputation, aka karma. People like being recognized.

(That, and Jon Skeet.)

------
klochner
Searching SO via google works great, but their native search kinda blows:

[http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=rails+has_and_belongs_to_m...](http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=rails+has_and_belongs_to_many)

[http://www.google.com/search?q=rails+has_and_belongs_to_many...](http://www.google.com/search?q=rails+has_and_belongs_to_many+site%3Astackoverflow.com)

~~~
chime
I don't know why more sites don't use Google's Ajax API and instead waste
resources on making really bad search engines. Sure, users get more features
if you roll your own engine (sort-by-hotness, hide self-posts etc.) but what
users want are good results, not features.

I wish reddit, HN, and SO used Google's Ajax. I made a very simple JS/CSS tool
to add a Google search box to any site: <http://chir.ag/projects/drop-search/>
\- I use it on my blog and it works pretty well.

------
mhartl
Stack(Overflow|Exchange) is a textbook example of why you might want to take
VC rather than bootstrap. Whether they succeed or not, they perceive that
their chances of success are higher if they try to get big fast—and there's
nothing wrong with that.

Oftentimes the bootstrap vs. venture capital debate gets rather heated and
adversarial. But the dichotomy is a false one.

------
frou_dh
Listening to the plan for the proposal-heavy StackExchange site creation
process on the podcast, it seemed to me that it relies on people being super
motivated in desperately wanting a StackExchange created for their topic.

I wonder where this drive is supposed to come from for people who are
indifferent to the StackExchange software because they haven't participated in
sister sites much (or at all).

I mean, I'm even very familiar with and enjoy using the software
(StackOverflow), yet I can't be bothered using SuperUser for my general tech
needs, let alone creating a site of my own.

~~~
cruise02
It isn't supposed to come from people who haven't participated in sister
sites. They're taking ideas from within the existing communities for a reason.
They're going to take a handful (or several) from those ideas. Those sites
will attract more people in those new niches. In the next round of proposals
there will be a bigger pool of users to propose what the next sites should be.

------
thasmin
Software developers are the perfect audience for a Q&A site because they do
their job online. I think StackOverflow's biggest challenge is extending their
audience to people who aren't already on the Internet.

------
garply
"We're not going to have to worry about the cost of servers, hiring a few
people, getting office space. Before I would have walked around New York for
weeks looking at all the office space to save $2k/month. We don't have to be
careful anymore."

Hmm.

~~~
pchristensen
Not a red flag, given Joel's history and experience. Now he can optimize for
growth and opportunity cost as opposed to cash flow.

------
proee
I don't understand why SO doesn't generate enough money for the founders to
find an office space without having to worry about cost.

"Before I would have walked around New York for weeks looking at all the
office space to save $2k/month."

They receive 25M page views a month. So even at $5CPM that's $100k/month in
revenue. I'd think that would be enough income to get the ball rolling in an
office downtown.

Maybe they have a hard time selling ads?

------
jmatt
Their single biggest problem is OpenID. Normal people have zero tolerance for
such shenanigans. It's confusing to create an account and login. On top of
that asking for such information seems like a scam to non-techies. I know, I
know there is significant support for OpenID. Yet it's still a distraction to
the site. And it still scares people away. This may be acceptable for tech to
tech communities but not for the rest of the world.

------
brown9-2
Has Joel always been listed as the CEO of StackOverflow?

------
avk
"Now Spolsky says the plan is for the company to launch a handful of very
targeted sites running the same software but focused on offering objective
answers to technical questions in other verticals."

So is this just a pickier StackExchange?

How do they plan to offer objective answers (or is this just restating what
StackOverflow does today)?

------
codingthewheel
This article makes it seem like Spolsky had _way_ more to do with the
founding/creation of StackOverflow than he actually did. Jeff Atwood was the
visionary behind Stackoverflow / StackExchange, and (as a far bigger "voice"
in computing than Joel ever was) the guy who built initial
consensus/mindshare. Spolsky was (at best) just along for the ride, at least
initially.

~~~
reitzensteinm
I listened to their podcasts right from the start which doesn't qualify me to
comment. But I will anyway.

I'm just not sure this is the case. Joel seemed to have a much better grasp of
the big picture. You could tell that he'd thought everything through really
well, in the way that you'd expect from a successful business owner.

There's no doubt that Jeff did all the 'work' between the pair - Joel was
mainly advising. But I would be very careful about writing off his
contribution. I would personally bet a lot of money that Atwood going it alone
would have been far less successful.

I'm not saying that Joel contributed more than Jeff either. When you look at
two partners, and claim that one is more important than the other... that's a
pretty big call to make. And unless you personally know them, I'm not sure you
have the evidence to back it up.

~~~
codingthewheel
Fair enough. But don't you think the coverage in this particular article was a
little Spolsky-centric? I agree they're a team (equals), and don't mean to
imply Spolsky was a Johnny-come-lately, but the RWW article really just
mentioned Atwood in passing. I thought it was a little strange that his name
wasn't mentioned til below the fold but, no big deal.

