
How Stack Overflow for Teams Fits into the Community - jlericson
https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/05/23/how-stack-overflow-for-teams-fits-into-the-community/
======
paulmd
Can't wait, sounds great. I've got some coworkers whose questions I would
definitely [close - already answered]. We already covered this last week,
Terry!

~~~
jarofgreen
Aaaaaand this nicely illustrates the first thought I had about it. Are the
moderation tools - that so many people hate on the public site - the same and
are they suited to private companies? My current company is far to small for
this product but that was my big worry.

~~~
jlericson
I'm not sure what size company is too small — we'll have to see after a few
months. My hunch is a team as small as 3 could make the system useful with a
bit of self-discipline to answer on the site and not in Slack or what not.
It's also useful if your team expects to onboard new people. Those questions
from new members can really help build up a collection of policies and
processes that haven't been written down yet.

At any rate, moderation tools are toned down or removed altogether for Teams.
As we hear back from customers, we'll likely be tweaking the tools to fit
better with their workflow. A lot of the moderation tools on the public site
amount to crowd control.

~~~
jarofgreen
Do you plan to publish the differences somewhere? If so I'll have a look in a
few months, but for now I'll want to let it settle down and see.

------
superflyguy
Few new users joining Stack Exchange and long time users less engaged due to
relentless flow of new users and their low quality questions plus the "be nice
to people too lazy to learn how the site works before posting" nagging.

Documentation didn't work so let's scrap that and try something else that's
non-core to keep the investors happy.

I've learned from Google Reader that you don't rely on non-core services.

I'd give this a year or so before it's either made free or scrapped.

------
keithnz
I quite like the idea, we have confluence at the moment, this would take a
whole section of what we do in confluence away and make it better, but it kind
of becomes a bit of mish mash of systems and the pricing would double

~~~
wokwokwok
We also use confluence, but its irritating as hell having no easy way to see
how recent subsections of each page are.

Is this info good or bad? The page was updated yesterday, but this part was
written two years ago.

Worse, its down to arbitrary decisions by individuals what goes where, and
search for answers and you get... surprise! Old pages no one wants to delete
'just in case'.

I think the real value here is that old answers _are_ still important, but
maybe they're not the _right_ answer any more.

Confluence (and the wiki format in general) just fails time and time again at
offering relevant timely information.

I get it, its like source control; just delete that stuff and update the page,
its still in the history... but people just dont.

~~~
dmitriid
How is Stackoverflow for Teams going to be any better?

One of the biggest problems SO sites have is the prevalence of outdated info
no one will ever update or remove.

------
anitil
We've been playing with this. Seems to be working well, however it's early
days so we only have limited content so far. I can imagine it'll particularly
shine with new hires, but we'll see.

------
a_imho
tldr: pr piece

Personally, it reads a bit desperate, solution looking for a problem.

~~~
eganist
Considering their layoffs at the tail end of last year, I'm hard pressed to
disagree with you. This sounds like the beginning of a pivot because their
existing mission wasn't something anyone cared enough about to pay for (which
itself is not indicative of a bad product; it's indicative of a bad market
fit. Documentation and technical debt are rarely prioritized).

