I think the following are all excellent points -- on SO I'd upvote them :).
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Eli Barzilay <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, SO is generally doing a good job, for a market that was plagued with > crappy sites like you describe. So it's a decent option for that particular > kind of interactions. The feature of suggesting existing answers based on > your question can work pretty well, and it looks like it deals well with > scalability issues -- both the technical aspects and the social ones (by > giving experienced users moderation power). Advertising isn't too bad > either (not that I see any of it though...). On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Asumu Takikawa <[email protected]> wrote: > SO also has the advantage that it acts as marketing for the Racket > community. It's plausible that developers are more likely to use (or at > least to hear about) a language that has strong SO activity. On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, I've found stack overflow to be great. There was a certain class > of questions that I used to not be able to find answers to by googling > that now I can and it has been very helpful on occasion. Starting to be OT: The New York Times Sunday magazine just had a good article (readable online) about games, including the "gamification" of non-game systems. Although not mentioned in that article, the Stack Exchange family of sites are an interesting example of using game mechanisms for a productive end. ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
