Experts-exchange.com - Anyone use it?

[Gittins Gal]

Also...Did someone once tell you this was cute? Because it's not.

Well, yes but I thought we were going to keep it private...

[doodab]

Also...Did someone once tell you this was cute? Because it's not.

I have her on ignore. That's how inneresting ******* annoying and tedious it is.

[psychocandy]

spelling bee,

Does that mean you'll be taking psychocandy with you?
We don't permanently ban people just because -- another difference between EE and some other sites. And we have room for all kinds.

d000hg,

Is that why you slag off the other, massively popular, sites and make cheap jibes about them, rather than merely pointing out EE's particular strengths?
Like most people, I don't react well to comments like "Stackoverflow was created for the sole purpose of rendering the wretched and horrible Experts Exchange irrelevant." We didn't pick the fight.

There are plenty of differences:
1. We don't treat people like idiots simply because they don't know how to ask a question (or formulate a response) in the precise manner expected by... someone.
2. We have a business model that is sustainable.
3. We offer more ways to contribute, and more ways to learn -- with more still coming in the next year or so.
4. We're about getting you a solution to your problem, not someone else's idea of what the perfect solution is to someone else's interpretation of your problem.

eek,

Like most things, not entirely accurate, but not entirely inaccurate.

EE's management made a boatload of mistakes, notably in 2007 by changing its URL format, which, to Google, meant it disappeared. Since, unlike sites that have boatloads of VC money sustaining them, EE is entirely dependent on traffic and subscriptions, that was a disaster. (That the members tried to warn them isn't relevant.) To counter-act the drop, they listened to a SEO-addicted marketing manager, who got them to implement all manner of pretty shady -- but at the time perfectly acceptable to Google -- SEO tricks.

Enter Mr Atwood and Mr Spolsky, who convinced Mr Cutts -- not to mention a lot of other people -- that EE was evil (as opposed to ... misguided is probably the most charitable word), so in addition to getting a lot of competition EE hadn't had before, it also got hammered by Google's algorithm updates, beginning with Panda. Every time EE would change its ways, they changed the rules. So, when a new CEO took over a little over a year ago, the first major change he made was to get rid of the paywall.

But to say EE fleeced anyone is ignorance in the face of evidence. I spent about 35 years in the news business -- and it should be painfully obvious why the advertising model won't work: in order to be profitable, one has to be able to control the price. The only organizations who effectively control the price they charge (and therefore ensure profitability) are Google, Yahoo and Facebook, and maybe Bing and Baidu. The rest are trying... but until you reach that kind of traffic, and have systems where you're selling (as opposed to renting out the space), it's a losing proposition.

EE figured that out in 2003, if not earlier. The only sustainable business model is to provide a service -- like a plumber does -- and charge for it. Like everyone else who contributes to EE, I pay -- with a lot of time every day. Experts pay -- with their knowledge and experience. Others pay -- with their credit cards.

Today, EE will let you see the questions without paying, but it won't let you contribute until you join (at no charge) and it won't let you ask until you either pay or earn.

d000hg (redux),

There's a built-in cultural bias at almost all Q&A sites I've seen against doing TOO much work; I suppose it's like asking your neighbor the electrician to come rewire your house for free. He's not likely to do it because it's how he makes a living -- but if you presented him with a pretty unique situation, he might take a stab at it for the experience. It happens, but it shouldn't be expected.

That's one of the things EE is still trying to figure out how to implement. I know of a non-profit that couldn't get legal help when it offered what it could afford (about 1/10th of the going rate for lawyers), but as soon as it asked for pro bono help, it had about a dozen attorneys begging to do the work. In tech, there's always someone who is willing to do $5,000 worth of work for $500 -- but I sure as hell wouldn't want to bet my business on some guy who's willing to work that cheaply.

Gittins Gal,

You should have read the thread. You don't have to scroll down any longer, and haven't for at least six months.

d000hg (redux 2),
If they launched experts-answer-stupid-noob-questions.com on the other hand.

You'd die on the vine. Nobody thinks they're stupid, so nobody would dare ask there.

Fair play to the fella for coming on here.

To be honest, tried it for a month and its 'ok'. Wont pay £20 a month or whatever it is but if you ask nicely its a LOT cheaper ;-)

[psychocandy]

spelling bee,

Does that mean you'll be taking psychocandy with you?
We don't permanently ban people just because -- another difference between EE and some other sites. And we have room for all kinds.

d000hg,

Is that why you slag off the other, massively popular, sites and make cheap jibes about them, rather than merely pointing out EE's particular strengths?
Like most people, I don't react well to comments like "Stackoverflow was created for the sole purpose of rendering the wretched and horrible Experts Exchange irrelevant." We didn't pick the fight.

There are plenty of differences:
1. We don't treat people like idiots simply because they don't know how to ask a question (or formulate a response) in the precise manner expected by... someone.
2. We have a business model that is sustainable.
3. We offer more ways to contribute, and more ways to learn -- with more still coming in the next year or so.
4. We're about getting you a solution to your problem, not someone else's idea of what the perfect solution is to someone else's interpretation of your problem.

eek,

Like most things, not entirely accurate, but not entirely inaccurate.

EE's management made a boatload of mistakes, notably in 2007 by changing its URL format, which, to Google, meant it disappeared. Since, unlike sites that have boatloads of VC money sustaining them, EE is entirely dependent on traffic and subscriptions, that was a disaster. (That the members tried to warn them isn't relevant.) To counter-act the drop, they listened to a SEO-addicted marketing manager, who got them to implement all manner of pretty shady -- but at the time perfectly acceptable to Google -- SEO tricks.

Enter Mr Atwood and Mr Spolsky, who convinced Mr Cutts -- not to mention a lot of other people -- that EE was evil (as opposed to ... misguided is probably the most charitable word), so in addition to getting a lot of competition EE hadn't had before, it also got hammered by Google's algorithm updates, beginning with Panda. Every time EE would change its ways, they changed the rules. So, when a new CEO took over a little over a year ago, the first major change he made was to get rid of the paywall.

But to say EE fleeced anyone is ignorance in the face of evidence. I spent about 35 years in the news business -- and it should be painfully obvious why the advertising model won't work: in order to be profitable, one has to be able to control the price. The only organizations who effectively control the price they charge (and therefore ensure profitability) are Google, Yahoo and Facebook, and maybe Bing and Baidu. The rest are trying... but until you reach that kind of traffic, and have systems where you're selling (as opposed to renting out the space), it's a losing proposition.

EE figured that out in 2003, if not earlier. The only sustainable business model is to provide a service -- like a plumber does -- and charge for it. Like everyone else who contributes to EE, I pay -- with a lot of time every day. Experts pay -- with their knowledge and experience. Others pay -- with their credit cards.

Today, EE will let you see the questions without paying, but it won't let you contribute until you join (at no charge) and it won't let you ask until you either pay or earn.

d000hg (redux),

There's a built-in cultural bias at almost all Q&A sites I've seen against doing TOO much work; I suppose it's like asking your neighbor the electrician to come rewire your house for free. He's not likely to do it because it's how he makes a living -- but if you presented him with a pretty unique situation, he might take a stab at it for the experience. It happens, but it shouldn't be expected.

That's one of the things EE is still trying to figure out how to implement. I know of a non-profit that couldn't get legal help when it offered what it could afford (about 1/10th of the going rate for lawyers), but as soon as it asked for pro bono help, it had about a dozen attorneys begging to do the work. In tech, there's always someone who is willing to do $5,000 worth of work for $500 -- but I sure as hell wouldn't want to bet my business on some guy who's willing to work that cheaply.

Gittins Gal,

You should have read the thread. You don't have to scroll down any longer, and haven't for at least six months.

d000hg (redux 2),
If they launched experts-answer-stupid-noob-questions.com on the other hand.

You'd die on the vine. Nobody thinks they're stupid, so nobody would dare ask there.

Netminder - I used to think EE was 'OK'.

But my recent experience where my credit card was used a day later in a supermarket a few miles away from EE HQ to pay for one of the employees shopping has pissed me off a little bit I must admit.

Too much of a co-incidence sorry.

[Unix]

experts-exchange should be put out of it's misery. Horrible site. They made you scroll passed all number of ads to get the answer. They may have changed that now, but who cares that's 99% of the visitors perception of the site.