|
For those who don't know, M4M is hosted on the StackExchange software platform, which was being developed by Fog Creek software. Last Tuesday, April 13th 2010, the founder of Fog Creek, Joel Spolsky, announced that development of StackExchange 1.0 would cease, and they've decided to change their business model. The full announcement with details is here. Existing StackExchange administrators gave their feedback here including us. M4M has "at least 12 months" of free hosting as a StackExchange 1.0 site. We have two options at the end of the year:
We're committed to making sure the community and knowledge of moms4mom stays alive and well. We need to know what you, the community, thinks about these developments, and what you think our goals should be.
showing 5 of 7
show all
|
|
I would avoid option 2. There's no guarantee that another host won't change the rules on you too, if your site is self-hosted you have one less thing to worry about. The cost of bandwidth is pretty negligible now. For me and my Stack Exchange site, the main questions are:
I think the moms4mom community is great, though there are quite a few SO users, I'd worry that with a sudden influx of new users, they'd bring the negative aspects of the SO community, such as the "community wiki police" and anti-"rep-whore" sentiment would not work so well on a smaller site (you see this to some extent on Super User). As you can see I don't have a real answer to this question myself, but it's interesting to see how well OSQA works. I've been meaning to check it out myself but I have another project deadline to focus on. I think the concerns you have are valid for moms4mom too.
(Apr 18 '10 at 21:03)
Scott ♦♦
As tough as I will find it to lose all that polish of SE for the slightly more alpha feeling OSQA, I'd say go open source. At first I was intrigued by SE2.0, but reading the concerns from the POV of the site administrators/creators, I don't think giving up ownership is worth it. Not for M4M.
(Apr 19 '10 at 02:01)
brandstaetter
See my answer - you can always switch to your own domain with Shapado. Just because it offers to host your site doesn't mean you can't take its source code and host it on your own.
(Apr 19 '10 at 02:46)
ripper234
1
@ripper234, my point was that I'd avoid another hosted solution as you could be in the same situation as with SE. If you can take the package and source and host it yourself then that's not the same thing and is worth exploring
(Apr 19 '10 at 04:34)
Rich Seller
@ripper234, that's my fault for phrasing the question wrong. I'll change it to show that Shapado can also be self-hosted. I put it in the hosted category because OSQA does not have a real hosted option at the moment.
(Apr 19 '10 at 06:17)
Scott ♦♦
|
|
Well, FWIW, the team behind OSQA is ready to do everything we reasonably can to help you succeed. I'm not sure what the bigger picture issues are for all of you, but I'm pretty confident m4m can thrive in a model where you run the show yourselves. 1
Thanks Rick, and we really appreciate the help getting the meta site setup. We also want to support OSQA because it may be the best option for many smaller StackExchange sites that are very niche and only have 3 months to live.
(Apr 18 '10 at 21:13)
Scott ♦♦
|
|
I think that it is urgent to decide which way things are going to go: as a user, I'm not going to bother investing time in a community which could get shut down for apparently arbitrary reasons. I'd far rather trust the current benevolent dictators with their baby, than some committee, or Fog Creek. There's no reason to believe that what is good for Stack Exchange as a business will continue to be good for Moms4Mom as a community. For what it's worth, I think that the success of StackOverflow will never be repeated. So anything learnt from building that community is of no use for StackExchange. The 2.0 idea of having to arrive with a 'ready made' community to back-up the creation of your site idea seems pretty utopic to me. I think the 1.0 method of 'throw them at the wall and see what sticks' is more realistic. And the 'competing' sites argument is just a bad excuse. I mean, it's just a problem of dupes, and that's a solved problem, right? :) I wouldn't be surprised if at some stage StackExchange/Joel and StackOverflow/Jeff go their separate ways... UPDATE Having played with Area51 a bit, I'd say - with regret - that you're better off going it alone with a clone. There is no way - currently - that a site like this would ever get enough traction to reach beta. However, contrary to what I said above, I think it probably is worth hanging around a bit before deciding anything. If they continue on past form, they could very well change their minds again, and create a pay-based SE3.0... It seems to me very odd that they couldn't have supported both models... a democratically created group of sites, and a paid group of sites for special interest topics.
(Jun 17 '10 at 19:52)
Scott ♦♦
Yup, I mean what if Microsoft turned up and said "SE works better than social.msdn, can we use it?". Also, further to my remark about 'separate ways', see Jeff's comment here: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/52530/are-duplicates-creating-broken-windows/53283#53283. ("Joel has some strange ideas about how things work here, but he's also not here very often is he? Perhaps those two things are related")
(Jun 23 '10 at 04:37)
Benjol
|
|
I like the way M4M is currently run, in particular the comparativly relaxed attitude taken towards what questions or answers are appropriate. Whenever I visit SOFU now there always seems to be a question or two that have been closed and a big discussion going on in the comments about why it was closed. Normally this is then followed by a question on the meta site to again debate whether the question should have been closed. I just can't see this sort of debate being healthy for a community and I think it would be much worse for a topic like parenting where there are so few definite right or wrongs. |
|
Scott, did you miss that you can move to Shapado on your own server? In this way, its no different than osqa... Shapado simply offer an additional route to take, which is "they do the hosting for you". But .. you will always have the chance to take their source and run it off your own host. I don't know why you chose osqa & not Stack Exchange, and I'm really interested in knowing. Draw3Cards has only three months to live, so we need to make a decision fast. For me, the hosting feature that osqa is offering is worth it. We can host our site for free, or pay $9, and they do all the hassle of software updates for us. Thanks for the clarification. I updated the question.
(Apr 19 '10 at 06:46)
Scott ♦♦
|
|
I think you should very seriously consider moving to another platform. Whatever the reasons really are, Joel and Jeff are changing SE to an environment where they have control over sites that use their software. They talk a lot about "the community" owning sites, but the reality is that if they own the name and run the servers, then they're in control. Since you have a year, I think you should use the time to try out importing the SE data dumps into OSQA and Shapado and see how they work. Added, after thinking more about the SE 2.0 announcement: The thing that makes me think Joel and Jeff are going in the wrong direction is that they really only have one site that works well (albeit tremendously well) with their software and their "style" of running a site, and I don't think that their model of how a site should be run works as well for other topics. (By style, I mean things like their hatred of meta, insistence on Q&A with no discussion-style questions.) 1
We're trying to understand, from the M4M community's point of view, whether they'd rather have Tammy and I as the benevolent dictators or StackOverflow LLC. Our own personal point of view is that we trust ourselves more than Joel and Jeff, but it's hard to see it from another point of view.
(Apr 19 '10 at 18:44)
Scott ♦♦
I love how the SO software works, but I don't think Jeff and Joel have any great skill at building communities other than their first, biggest success: Stackoverflow. I'm active on Serverfault (their site for system admins) and some of their policies don't work as well there.
(Apr 19 '10 at 19:15)
Ward
For example, all Meta is restricted to meta.stackoverflow, but that is dominated by programmers talking about SO meta-topics (and in-jokes). Not many SF'ers follow meta and when they do they're drowned out by the programmers.
(Apr 19 '10 at 19:16)
Ward
|
|
I am looking at the topic from another perspective, and that is the value of the Moms4mom content, mission and what looks like quite a distinguished stance. All those ingredients actually blend well to form a successful brand base. (I have not come across such a clear, frill free question & answer site that even comes close to Moms4mom) I think this "Meta" site will certainly help us all discuss and communicate the ideas and thoughts that will help Moms4mom take the right decision when the time comes. I am also a believer that as the site continues to grow and evolve over the next few months, it will also give out clear signals about the direction/path which would be the most beneficial for Moms4mom to take. In the meantime I think I would like to understand whether the Moms4mom philosophy is totally on par with that of Stack Exchange and be clearer about "Creative Commons" license and periodic "Data Dumping" The data dump is an interesting thing. The ones that StackOverflow publishes (and StackExchange 2.0 would publish) are understandably scrubbed of all user data, so while you can take the content anywhere, you can't "move" the site easily. The decision to go to SE 2.0 would be permanent.
(Apr 19 '10 at 18:48)
Scott ♦♦
2
... that is, unless we negotiated a "failure clause" with StackOverflow LLC that would turn the entire database back over to us in the event that they close down the site. But I'm not sure how much protection that really brings, especially if you need to get lawyers involved.
(Apr 19 '10 at 18:49)
Scott ♦♦
2
We're thinking about all the same issues at MathOverflow (although with less sense of urgency, it seems?). We're absolutely insistent that we continue to have access to the entire database on an ongoing basis (i.e., not just on failure), and fairly confident that Fog Creek will agree to this.
(Apr 22 '10 at 15:44)
Scott Morrison
|
|
I would like to see the Moms4mom community seriously consider joining the StackExchange network. I understand the initial announcement in changing the StackExchange model was shocking and frankly unfair to those that had invested the time and money to set up sites. However, it is what it is and now that things have shaken out, it would be worth re-evaluating. I realise that I am not a member of the community, but came in search of it today as I had a question and remembered there was a StackExchange parenting site from the 1.0 days. Hopefully this perspective can highlight a few points.
Joel and Jeff are not perfect, they have their own agenda and some of their decisions are better than others. But ultimately they want to build successful community-based Q&A sites which is what moms4mom wants. +1 for the valid and well thought out points. We had a hard time deciding, but we have a few very good reasons to take moms4mom off of StackExchange. That doesn't preclude a StackExchange parenting site. However, if you look at the Parenting proposal, you'll see that a lot (perhaps most) of the questions on moms4mom would be considered off-topic (because they deal with pregnancy, getting pregnant, etc.) - basically anything that isn't strictly about raising a child. We think this is too narrow for moms4mom. That doesn't mean we think the Area51 proposal won't work.
(Jan 10 '11 at 20:01)
Scott ♦♦
As an example, I'm pretty sure your first question on moms4mom would definitely be considered off-topic by the people running the Parenting proposal on Area 51.
(Jan 10 '11 at 20:06)
Scott ♦♦
I realise that -- which is why I wish that moms4mom had been involved and set the standard. Perhaps it is too late which is disappointing.
(Jan 11 '11 at 04:02)
g__
@g_ one of the administrators of moms4mom I also appreciate your points. As someone who is not part of the SO community my main issue is that if the site went to StackExchange we would have to essentially give it away. After all of the work establishing the site and community we would be handing it over to someone else.
(Feb 06 '11 at 22:31)
Tammy
|
This whole discussion is a bit pre-mature, I think. You have 12 months to remain on Stack Exchange - use them. By then the alternatives will become much more clear, no real reason to make the decision now.
Now, where to hots meta-M4M - that's a different story (see meta.moms4mom.com/question/20/)
@ripper234, Some members of our community already contacted us and wanted to know how this was going to affect the site. Therefore, we think it's worth starting a discussion now, even if we don't make a decision for a while.
Bump - following latest blog post by Robert Cartaino (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/05/migration-of-se-1-0-sites/). I really think they've lost the ball on this one. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that in the name of some nebulous "community", they're risking the ire of the existing very real communities that have sprung up around these sites.
If they can't even keep mathoverlow on board (read the comments), I find that quite alarming.
How about proposing exactly the same thing on Area51, and seeing what happens? I can do it if you want to remain anonymous :)
@Benjol: Someone is trying to create a dads only site there: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/2135/just-for-dads Personally I think we can do better than StackOverflow LLC at creating a parenting site, but we're still open to what the M4M community wants to do.
@Scott, I can see you there :), what I'm getting at is that I'm highly doubtful that the area51 method will be any good at selecting successfully sites, so I was thinking of an experiment by trying to create a site that WE KNOW works... So it was less about proving that Moms4Mom would work on SE, but that SE just won't work...
@Benjol: Oh, I see now. Thanks! :)