How Stack Overflow for Teams Fits into the Community | Hacker News Reader

How Stack Overflow for Teams Fits into the Community

stackoverflow.blog

62 pointsjlericson13 comments

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'd guess it sorta depends on whether people spend more time on Confluence or Stack Overflow. If questions are already getting answered and used, Stack Overflow for Teams isn't likely to do better at this stage in its development. On the other hand, if questions aren't getting answered or if people forget they exist, it might be worth trying out the Stack Overflow product since developers are likely to end up there regularly.

(Disclaimer: I have 0 experience with Confluence and I'm a Stack Overflow employee.)

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.

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.

We use a static website. That way you can do a git blame to see what line was last updated when. And it allows for separating the change from the approver.

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.

tldr: pr piece

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

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).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com