Timeline for What’s on your mind?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 13 at 8:02 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | The way I'm thinking about this A/B question is not so much about "lots of profit" versus "just getting by", but about what is the tool and what is the goal. Do we want to make money in order to support the creation and maintenance of the platform and the repository of knowledge? Or do we want to create and maintain those in order to make money? Over a short time frame, these two are hard to tell apart, because on a basic level, they are not even incompatible. But over a longer period, they will lead to differences in decision making. | |
| Dec 12 at 23:32 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @AndrasDeak--СлаваУкраїні that's actually a great-sequitur! That's mostly the same conclusion I arrived at, yes. So we're understood :) | |
| Dec 12 at 21:53 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | But the way current top management imagines KPIs doesn't include maintaining the knowledge base ecosystem that is (well, used to be) Stack Overflow. So by optimizing for their profits without optimizing for the actual platform they are trying to monetize they are constantly harming the platform. And this is what we perceive as "only money matters". A non-evil company "just trying to pay the bills" would make sure the cow is fed and healthy before trying to start an AI cheese empire. So it's obviously not about the actual motivators, just the symptoms we see. (2/2) | |
| Dec 12 at 21:52 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | @CesarM I'm not entirely sure I'm still following, so apologies if this happens to be mostly a non sequitur. "Only profit matters" vs "just trying to pay the bills" is an XY situation. Much like how we treat homework on SO. It's not the homeworkness per se that's an issue, but the quality of the question. A good homework-motivated question doesn't actually make it obvious that it's a homework question, because it's just a good question, and then nobody actually cares if it's homework. I see this problem similarly. Nobody actually cares if the company only chases profits. (1/2) | |
| Dec 12 at 21:25 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | (One last addition): from what you wrote, it seems to be that the major point of contention isn't actually if it feels like it's A or B. The major point of contention is that that's what you see as most prominent. Your (added) suggestions at the end that aren't a direct answer to the questions are all in line with changing things that are done, not why they're done. So it seems to me that the end conclusion is what is done matters more than why - and the feeling of A is an added way to express frustration but isn't because it's A. A company could be doing the same things if it were B. | |
| Dec 12 at 21:23 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @TylerH, thanks. Those are direct answers to the questions, and then you added a fair bit of suggestions on top of them. I think what you wrote makes sense, and feels (to me) like it accurately describes why the assumption is that the case is A rather than B (see above). It does all hinge, though, on assuming that the things being done before by themselves generated then, and could generate now, enough money to create profit. It's worth having that explicitly said I think. But overall, I'm happy with the answer you've given (if you or anyone wants to chime in more, feel free!). | |
| Dec 12 at 21:16 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @TylerH it's worth saying that the comments above were drafted before I read your comments, so they aren't informed by what you wrote. But I will read it and write more comments! :D | |
| Dec 12 at 21:16 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @SPArcheon The comments above are all a part of a response to your comment, too. But I want to add that "making the internet a better place has never been the only goal. The company was founded as a for-profit company. There has always been a desire to monetize the network, not to be burning VC cash. That desire was likely reflected in the valuation the company was acquired for, which translates to how much the previous Stockholders got paid for their stocks. There seems to be a difference in using it just for profit and also for profit. But that returns us to the questions above. | |
| Dec 12 at 21:16 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | Is doing the things in the "What we've been asking for for many years" list a sign of that? I'm not sure how it is if so. I understand why it would be a good sign for interest in curators/community, but not why it would reflect a company interested in making money to survive. Thus, I return to the question: Does it matter if it's A or B the motivation? If not, does it change anything about what TylerH said? And what would a company in scenario B be expected to be doing instead of what, in yall's view, puts us in scenario A? | |
| Dec 12 at 21:16 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | But companies in scenario B are also chasing profits, for different reasons. Many examples of Enshittification (Bryan's answer) are of companies trying to get out of losing money. Many of the media companies cited on the topic of bad reviews (Also Bryan's) were also trying not to die because they weren't turning profits. So, both A and B companies do things perceived as bad or anti-consumer. However, from TylerH's answer, it seems to matter why they were doing it (if A or B). I am still curious what actions you'd expect to see from us if the case were B. | |
| Dec 12 at 21:16 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | @AndrasDeak--СлаваУкраїні I did say "and other folks" so thank you for answering (sincerely). I do want to explore a bit further! The things you mentioned (AI, KPI improvements, not having curators as stakeholders) are examples of things largely viewed as bad. But I am still curious how they directly translate to "endless chase of ever-increasing profits". Profit being the motivator is present whether it's case A or B (ever-increasing or enough money to pay the bills). Much of the sentiment I read around this topic seems to indicate folks believe it's A rather than B, though. (cont) | |
| Dec 12 at 19:50 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM A third thing that would be better: please for the love of <insert deity here>, stop making changes to the markup/layout/design of the site unless there's a bug report on Meta that you're specifically addressing. If there isn't one, post one yourselves so the community can A) weigh in on whether it's a good idea/problem B) provide potentially better solutions, and perhaps most importantly C) have a heads up as to when a change might be coming that absolutely wrecks the user scripts they rely on daily to use the site. | |
| Dec 12 at 19:49 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM Another thing that would be better: go back to posting changelogs whenever you push changes to the site. Devs or CMs used to always make a post or answer somewhere that listed line items to the best of their ability of what was changed whenever a new version was rolled out. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/59445/… used to be maintained by staff. Now it's maintained by community users doing their best at guessing/keeping up with changes. | |
| Dec 12 at 19:47 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM If you want a specific example, here's one that can be started on immediately: have the current developers familiarize themself with their core product again. Require devs to use the site for some period of time before they're allowed to touch the codebase. That means ask some questions, write some answers, suggest some edits, do some reviews, synonymize a tag, handle some flags, etc. for several weeks. This can be done in your sandbox/test environment on content that's already been handled/done on production, if you wanna make it easy and control for the ideal/proper outcome. | |
| Dec 12 at 19:44 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM "I'd encourage you (and other folks, if they so wish) to explore it more than just "well, we wouldn't be seeing X" but rather the positive of "we'd be seeing Z"" If you'll notice, folks on Meta largely aren't asking the company to make right by reinventing the wheel. The lion's share of what folks are asking for is to just stop making things worse, because things were OK before. So I apologize but we have already well explored what the positive things are that we'd be seeing: just look at what we had pre-2019 and go back to that. | |
| Dec 12 at 19:41 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM I have a degree in business administration and have managed small to huge teams so I know fairly well that it's not exactly an "easy" task, both in execution or in patience, but it's one that I think is doable with the right structure and commitment to the ideal that is Stack Overflow/Stack Exchange. But it's exceptionally clear to anyone paying attention that the current company's ownership and top leadership is not interested/does not share that same commitment to said ideal. Their interest is in money, like every other company in the world acquired by a private equity firm. | |
| Dec 12 at 19:38 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM A real, proper jobs market like the old SO Jobs that connected real, genuine hirers with experts in their fields (this was going OK for Stack Overflow but for some reason was never expanded to other subject-matter network sites. WTH?!). Stack CVs was a good start as well that could've easily been monetized with a bit of additional work (turned fremium), and expanded to other network sites as well. (2/2) | |
| Dec 12 at 19:38 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM "2) What sort of actions would you believe you'd be seeing if the goal was to pay the bills?" The kind of things that the company was doing before selling the company to a private equity form. A paid product for enterprise users to spin up their own instance of SO, hosted or on-prem. Ads markets that have far more value to customers because they're required to be topical, high quality, and are vetted by people. (1/2) | |
| Dec 12 at 19:38 | comment | added | TylerH | @CesarM "1) What makes you believe that the actions taken are a result of chasing ever-increasing profits" Deals with Google and other companies to sell our content for AI using every possible avenue for injecting AI into the site. Also, deals with shady job boards to sell our jobs/user data and trade on the Stack Overflow brand. | |
| Dec 12 at 11:44 | comment | added | ꓢPArcheon | @CesarM Andras already told you why many fell like monetization of the network knowledge content it the only goal for the company, and by this I mean Prosus. But I want to ask the opposite question instead. If it is not a goal of profit that made Prosus buy the network, then what was it? Believing in that "making the internet a better place" thing Jeff had when creating the site? Because in that case I would question... wouldn't turning Stack Exchange in that independent NO PROFIT entity many dream of be the best proof they never intended to use the network just for profit? | |
| Dec 12 at 10:25 | comment | added | user1937198 | @VLAZ It wasn't really to you so much as a response to Cesar Ms comment about 'paying the bills'. And its exactly as you said, it should be all the time, but it isn't. Its one sprint a quarter. So whats happening in the rest of the quarter, and why is that more important? | |
| Dec 12 at 7:50 | comment | added | VLAZ | @user1937198 I am not really sure where that question comes from. The answer didn't tackle "community asks" sprints at all. And I don't think anybody suggested devoting a full quarter to it. But wherever that quarter comes from - same thing with the sprints. We shouldn't need specific times for long-standing issues to be fixed. We need long-standing issues to be fixed all the time. And not have new issues that become long-standing either. So also fix issues. A normal workflow: don't release broken functionality, fix important things early, finish projects. Not to delay these arbitrarily. | |
| Dec 12 at 7:35 | comment | added | Andreas condemns Israel | @user1937198 Imagine the police had a "police investigates quarter", then the rest of the year, they spent more time talking about how they were gonna catch all the criminals, but never did anything, because they were more occupied with getting new stash for their station. | |
| Dec 12 at 1:08 | comment | added | user1937198 | Consider, why wouldn't you want to do a community asks quarter? Whats more important than that. And why is that more important? | |
| Dec 11 at 22:54 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | Between the galactic amounts of VC money paid for the company, the constant push of arbitrary KPI improvements (which usually end up making the platform objectively worse for existing curators) and top management's apparent infatuation with the ruthless AI ecosystem (again in stark contrast with the curation goals) it's hard to see anything other than profit being the motivator. Every now and then plenty of old-timer curators provide the company with a list of "THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR MANY YEARS". We'll start looking for true interest when the company starts tackling those. | |
| Dec 11 at 22:53 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | Thanks, TylerH, for yet again phrasing pretty much what I have in mind, in far more detail and much better style than I'd ever have the skill or patience for. @CesarM I know you didn't ask me, but practically nothing the company's done in the past years has felt like it considers the community of curators a stakeholder. Any positive step ends up looking a lot like a diversion tactic, like the community sprints that seem like low-effort buffers to soften terrible news. (cont.) | |
| Dec 11 at 21:52 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | It may seem that the answers to those are "exact opposites", but I believe that is likely too simplistic, so I'd encourage you (and other folks, if they so wish) to explore it more than just "well, we wouldn't be seeing X" but rather the positive of "we'd be seeing Z". | |
| Dec 11 at 21:52 | comment | added | Cesar M StaffMod | A big part of the scenario you wrote about in your closing paragraph hinges on one key thing: the company being able - in your words - "to pay the bills" versus an endless search for ever-increasing profits. I can also see hints of that permeating throughout the text. There are two - distinct - and important questions from it that I believe are worth exploring: 1) What makes you believe that the actions taken are a result of chasing ever-increasing profits 2) What sort of actions would you believe you'd be seeing if the goal was to pay the bills? (+1 comment with details on the questions) | |
| Dec 11 at 17:15 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | So you're right, in a specific sense. I'm not expecting anything revolutionary by asking this; the insights we're likely to glean here have probably been said by someone, somewhere, before. (Probably not compiled or framed the way I'm asking here, though.) And even if it were totally new, I'd have to expect that this specific question won't end up being "the right one" to ask. It's exploratory. Thankfully, we don't have to stop asking questions after just the one. The rest of your answer is valuable, and is something I'm going to have to think more about before I have all that much to say. | |
| Dec 11 at 17:12 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | Your question is interesting, and I expected to run into it. The truth is, I'd be foolish to promise you any specific outcome or future on the basis of this post. But I'll tell you why I'm making it: My earnest belief is that, in Stack Exchange, we've built something worth fighting for. If discussions like these are truly locked off forever, devoid of value, then I guess we have to accept that no amount of discussion can ever be productive: best give up now. But if there's something worth preserving here, I have to believe it is possible for us to find a successful pathway and do it. | |
| Dec 11 at 17:00 | history | answered | TylerH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |