That might be true on Stackoverflow but not on other network sites like Cross Validated, which was killed by splitting the community into multiple SE sites and longtime users quitting in protest over various policies and not being replaced.

▲

emodendroket 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think there's a basic problem that the original revenue model for the site just didn't work (I mean, they wouldn't have shut down Stack Overflow Jobs if that actually made them any money) and anything they were able to do to fix that pissed people off.

▲

smcin 4 days ago | parent [-]

Stack Overflow Jobs was a superb, uncluttered, direct interface to the hiring manager, with accurate details about a position. So when they canned it (but kept their advertising revenue stream plus started "SO for Teams" in 2018), that was a major canary that the whole revenue model wasn't viable, at least for independent developers.

▲

emodendroket 3 days ago | parent [-]

Well I think part of the problem here is that, by all accounts, developers loved it, but they're not the actual paying customer.

▲

smcin 3 days ago | parent [-]

If SO wanted to keep experienced developers on their site and contributing content for free, it shouldn't have been unthinkable to find some model to fund SO Jobs. Yahoo is one cautionary tale of what happens when a site pursues more or lower-quality advertising revenue without regard for losing users.

"Sunsetting Jobs & Developer Story" 3/2022 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/415293/sunsetting-j...

▲

emodendroket 15 hours ago | parent [-]

The point of SO Jobs was to fund the rest of the site. You're saying they should have subsidized what was meant to be the revenue driver too?

▲

smcin 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Don't distort my words. If SO Jobs was one of the key engagement features bringing thousands of experienced developers to SO to contribute free content (and the site was valued at $1.8bn in the acquisition), then any reasonable accounting would find those features were cash-positive.

(That seems comparable to arguing that Facebook shouldn't subsidize posting baby photos).

But if it was the case that SO mgmt decided (2017-2020) that they didn't care to keep experienced users engaged, and just let the site degenerate into new users posting bigger volumes of duplicates, questions without code, etc., then that would be on them. You don't have to assume their actions were rational; look how badly they mismanaged moderation in that period and how many experienced users that lost them.

	▲	emodendroket 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think that it is simultaneously the case that 1) SO Jobs had job-seekers who loved it 2) it was not actually a major draw to the site 3) it didn't make money, despite 4) being primarily intended as a monetization mechanism. You are starting from different premises you didn't bother stating and then accusing me of being dishonest for not divining them.