Timeline for Too much focus on Stack Overflow?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 22, 2010 at 18:07 | history | migrated | from meta.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Aug 17, 2009 at 3:06 | comment | added | Eric | @Farseeker: I think that history plays a huge role in what types of questions are accepted at ServerFault, how issues are handled, etc. StackOverflow only comes up once you start wanting to learn more about the community--either via the blog or via Meta. If that's the case, you have to get where the community came from to understand why we are the way we are. You don't have to go to StackOverflow, but there's nothing wrong with keeping the blog and Meta names/URLs. | |
| Aug 17, 2009 at 2:45 | comment | added | Farseeker | I like to think I'm a useful contributor to the community, but I haven't been to Stack Overflow except for a glance to see what colour scheme it uses. Because each site targets a very different audience. History is important to those who were there since the beginning, but the history of the site/community is of little or no significance to someone who just wants to get the job done... | |
| Aug 17, 2009 at 2:40 | comment | added | Eric | @Farseeker: And I don't think that a user who stumbles on SU knows nor cares about StackOverflow. But, really, if they want to start becoming a part of the community, StackOverflow is a big part of what SU is, where it came from, and how it was built. I don't think it's a bad thing to make that history transparent. | |
| Aug 17, 2009 at 2:15 | comment | added | Farseeker | True that it's the root of the community, but that doesn't mean it has to be the focus of every peripheral function. Especially when the name 'stack overflow' is attached to everything, but a user who stumbles upon Super User isn't going to know what stack overflow is. | |
| Aug 17, 2009 at 2:10 | history | answered | Eric | CC BY-SA 2.5 |