> We are in the process of sending out an email now announcing Developer Story to the larger community in the hopes that we can help some percentage of developers. If that email is rejected, we’ll unsubscribe you. If you’re unresponsive to emails we send, we’ll unsubscribe you. If you mark it as spam, we’ll unsubscribe you.
How great it would be if every site would subscribe to such high standards. Bravo, SO.
Most sites do this already, at least they should if they want to make sure more of their emails don't end up in junk folders. Deliverability is really important to both businesses and email service providers, so a lot of the time, bounce unsubscribes and spam unsubscribes are baked in and easing off subscribers who don't open or click emails is a best practice for deliverability purposes.
The absolute antibehavior of what you descrcribe I've recently experienced with Air Asia.
A few month ago they started to spam me with a newsletter I never requested. Last time I flew them was in the beginning of 2015 and I never subscribed for their crap.
The unsubscribe link on the mail does not work and after a significant amount of digging I found a way to unsubscribe by sending mail to [email protected].
Only that mail to this address is never delivered.
In essence there seems to be no way to unsubscribe from their list.
I mention that because it's infuriating that "reputable" companies think they can spam away with gusto without even the possibility to unsubscribe from their shit.
Here's a hint for you Air Asia: You are not reputable! You are on the same level as pushers of fake knock-off Viagra, purveyors of fake shlock Rolexes, and Nigerian scammers! And you will never, ever get an additional cent from me.
I spent a big part of the past year in email marketing for another company... It is a huge job for any organization, I'm glad that SO has such high standards. Making the product as good as possible, over making interaction the goal in and of itself without thinking of the need for that interaction.
In lecture 6 of "How to start a startup", entitled "Growth", Alex Schultz touches on this point specifically in a hypothetical concern people might have of being too spammy. His point was that one should worry about the marginal user who doesn't get notifications, not about the power users who are grown ups and can set filters. Granted, SO is no longer a "startup" but growth is still relevant to it nonetheless and it is interesting to note that the question of emails is far from being over and done with.
If SO here I'd like to extend my thanks to. I might be interested in "offers" but it'd be nice to detect when I don't give a sh*t about it and back off.
SO is doing it right. But the community will very likely not care.
Great answer to a related FAQ in a post[0] linked from this article, about why !SO doesn't care about ad blockers:
> The truth is: we don’t care if our users use ad blockers on Stack Overflow. More accurately: we hope that they won’t, but we understand that some people just don’t like ads. Our belief is that if someone doesn’t like them, and they won’t click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won’t click on them harms campaign performance.
And a great explanation in the piece of how SO works to serve only quality ads.
Good enough, in fact, that I'm whitelisting Stack Overflow from my adblocker. I don't do it often, I don't even do it for sites I like; the reality is that anyone using an automated ad network is at significant risk of serving malware, and I don't approve even if I'm protected. I don't visit Forbes at all anymore, ever, because they broke their users basic faith in "see our ads, and we won't destroy your machine".
But a promise to serve relevant, low-impact ads, chosen by actual humans? That's something I'm willing to support.
StackOverflow is an extremely valuable resource for all programmers. I've not seen the option anywhere, but a yearly donation would definitely be something I'd do for a substantial amount (substantial to me as a student, so it's not the moon but not a beer either).
How do you know they don't make that much money? I didn't see that anywhere in the blog post.
I agree that they make an enormous contribution to the world economy. Joel really did knock it out of the park -- remember expertsexchange? His goal was to get rid of that and it worked.
A thought provoking example I had pointed out to me recently is the GPS system, which was built and is maintained by the US government but is a free public service. The amount of public value from it is astronomical.
Another good article linked from this one: https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt.... Stack Overflow is IMO the site to look to if you want to do ads correctly. So many big sites have incredibly trashy ads, SO shows that they care to not subject their users to that junk.
I paid a good amount of money for the jobs listings because it is Stack Overflow.
The sales person was very persistent and available while the negotiations were happening to use their service (yes, you can get discounts). As soon as I paid, she disappeared and was never to be heard from again. No follow up at all.
I also got zero good jobs references for an extremely profitable tech business in the heart of downtown financial district in San Francisco. All the people who applied were basically spam and that wasn't any better than just posting on LinkedIn or HN for free.
Not really a complaint, just one small data point to consider.
Perhaps it's time they consider paying Moderators for their time and effort. It doesn't need to be anything large, even a small stipend will suffice.
Moderators are the real lifeblood of StackExchange. They spend countless hours ensuring their respective Sub Exchange hums along. Yes, it's a volunteer "job", but it's a job none-the-less - especially since once you become a Moderator, it's more-or-less expected you have certain responsibilities and obligations. Given StackExchange makes a pretty healthy profit off the efforts of the "volunteers", and given StackExchange is a for profit company, it seems fitting they should have to pay for the labor that creates their profit.
Currently, StackExchange kicks back and rakes in money via various avenues, but then doesn't have to pay staff to actually manage the growing plethora of Sub Exchanges.
We all give companies grief for underpaying or mis-classifying employees, but somehow everyone overlooks StackExchange.
I believe it an accurate statement to say, StackExchange would not be a thing today, if it were not for the innumerable hours worked for free by a growing army of "volunteers".
I mean, sure, but I'm not sure why you say '"volunteers"' - they are exactly volunteers. Yes, extracting labour for free from volunteers can be the sign of something shady, but with SE I don't really see that evil intent.
Moderators not being staff means that the community has more say in how the sites function, which is a thing people want.
It's hard - communities want to police themselves, not be dictated unto by a controlling body. As soon as you start paying the moderators, they are under your sway.
I also don't think it'd be easy to create a fair remuneration system that didn't incentivise the wrong thing, or create pressure on moderators that they don't currently have.
> Every new email, except for transactional emails like “Forgot your password?”, sent through this system will have three links at the bottom: a one-click unsubscribe, a direct link to manage all categories, and feedback.
It's terrific that they're doing this. The first two links are what the CAN-SPAM Act requires. The "feedback" link is not a result of complying with CAN-SPAM, but is a good idea for any online business.
I like Stack Overflow, but I seriously don't know how all these answers end up there. I think about 80% of all my questions are answered sooner or later by myself. And some of them are quite massively upvoted too afterwards, so they weren't always niche problems.
A reminder that you don't need to use the latest or fanciest tech stack to achieve success in business. In the case of SO, boring wins, it's proven and seems like it allows them to focus on their product and to create new value for users.
TLDR: They make money through ads, job postings and their enterprise product. The author believes that they can make money and serve users at the same time.
Correct. This question - HOW MUCH MONEY does Stack Overflow make per year - was asked in their Meta site. Granted it's a privately held company but there is atleast 1 answer that quotes "credible sources" and pegs it at atleast 21 MILLION USD in revenues (for 2013).
It was pretty good and usually useful IME until they got greedy and hid the content from all but subscribers.
It made me quite angry when they locked up my content. I switched to posting solutions on my blog then. Now I tend to stick stuff on Stack rather than blog it.
So is it cash flow positive? I hope so, because it's hands down the most useful site for programmers. I even got the gold medal for using it every day for a long time.
StackOverflow is so powerful resource on the Internet, alongside with Wikipedia and Internet Archive.
I wish I could donate two ways:
1) Yearly or monthly (subscription) donations, like on Wikipedia
2) I would be extremely happy to donate authors of some great, life-saving answers. I feel so excited when I find the right answer after searching a solution for hours.
> And we don’t want to use an automated system that selects some ads for us.
So they do direct deals mostly, which is antiquated and probably to preserve their branding as a "tech site".
> Did you know we have a lot of unpaid inventory on Stack Overflow every month?
This is what trying to guess your avails with direct ends up doing. Leaving inventory unmonetized. Typically, you get paid less for less of your inventory trying to do monthly manual trafficking.
All they do is display, so it's rather silly to quibble about CPMs in the 25 cent range...until you look at the traffic and realize that translates to real money.
Except for all the crap about "targeted advertising", it turns out that if you run a site like StackOverflow, you can more accurately target adverts to your average user by curating the adverts than by letting some system try and guess based on whatever they have managed to sniff.
More importantly, the automated stuff is a huge security risk, and will generally annoy your users when someone puts out something they shouldn't, even if it's not a security issue.
Sure, they could saturate the pages with more crap adverts no one wants, and they would sell for less (because they would be less effective), and they'd piss off their user base.
SO has long been one of the very, very few on my adblocking whitelist. I don't dislike adverts as a core idea, but 99% of advertising online is invasive, annoying and useless.
Thank you for submitting this on HN. I am really happy to see the site grow.
> I am extremely protective of our users. You can ask anyone who works here. It’s is my very strong belief that we have a built up a trust with the community that is not easily earned and is impossible to replace. I want to work for a company that respects that trust, and I do.
> How much money we make is a direct proxy for how much we are helping our users. We focus on maximizing how we help users in order to make a great business. Very few companies have done this successfully, and we take great pride in the fact that we’re one of them.
"They are gaining a lot of goodwill because they have committed to attach a high value to user experience over monetary gain (they learnt from sites in the past that lost their community because they plastered the site with ads. Needless to say, those sites eventually failed)"
I remember other sites that did something similar but they got lost on the way and sold their users away and ultimately fell to disrepair because no one came back.
I hope they continue to stay true to this course.
> We don’t because if we don’t have anything even remotely good to show you, we shouldn’t.
> And we don’t want to use an automated system that selects some ads for us. We looked at this. It didn’t allow us the control we required to maintain the level of quality we want to maintain. We have intentionally left a lot of money on the table. Sacrificing quality is not what we want to be known for. We believe there are better ways.
In my limited experience with online advertising, one metric that almost all advertisers ask for are page views.
I believe this is a fundamentally flawed metric. It can be gamed easily and ultimately targeting ads by page views lead to a suboptimal user experience.
I would rather not show an ad than show an irrelevant ad.
SE is bigger than just page views. It’s a successful ecosystem that has a vibrant community behind it that will grow and nurture itself.
It's great to see that their management would rather not show an ad than show an irrelevant ad.
> If you have time though, I’d appreciate if you told me why in the comments so I/we can do better.
Introduce anonymous answers.
I know of very talented developers who would like to answer questions without setting up (throwaway) accounts. Spam is a non-issue here unless spammers model answers like good answers (of which we have a pretty large set to train from)
Spam has a lot of problem potential. Dodging spam when you're looking for answers is like jumping in a swimming hole where someone dumped a garbage bag of empty milk containers, lettuce leaves, coffee grounds, plastic wrap... Frankly, it's just another kind of advertisement, and I think it's much worse than the official kind, whose site-killing power you mention.
>Spam is a non-issue here unless spammers model answers like good answers
A multi-layered system, starting with some filtering right at the beginning, is, I think, the best way to keep illicit ads under control. Stack Overflow has very high value as a target for spammers and very low amounts of spam compared to that value; I'd really like it to stay that way.
I hate having to register at every new site, too, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable if you're actually trying to post.
For my own curiosity, when you mean anonymous answers do you mean by people who don't have accounts on our platform at all, or do you mean people who already have accounts disconnecting their persona from a specific answer?
Or, if you are worried about spam, you could allow signed in users to "post a question|answer anonymously". This would not allow users to see who posted the question, but would allow things like statistics (to track spammers and the like).
FWIW, you don't have to create an account to answer questions on Stack Overflow. We'll encourage you to do so, because it generally makes things easier... But if you want to just enter an email address (can be fake) and some sort of name (doesn't have to be one you use anywhere else), you can post without registering or revealing any personal details. We don't require folks to associate an account on another site, or silly "real name" requirements, or anything else that'd force you to identify yourself.
But, I'd guess what you're probably after is something else entirely: a way to have an account, and post answers using that account, but not have those answers associated publicly with that account. This has been requested a few times over the years, but... It's a bit of a troublesome idea:
- Spam / trolling (the kind performed by humans, not bots) often depends on being able to stay just a little bit ahead of the folks who are trying to stop you. Anything that can buy you a few more minutes of activity before being blocked can upset that balance; sure, we could remove anonymity for moderators, but there's a psychological impact here: if you think you can get away with something, you're more likely to try.
- Reputation is tracked on a per-account basis, and most of the accounting there is public: again, this serves multiple purposes, both for the author themselves (they're encouraged to become "invested" in the site by contributing in exchange for privileges) and for the greater community (privileges aren't handed out capriciously, they're earned in ways that can be tracked).
- What about things like edits and comments? Presumably you'd want to be able to respond to comments on your answers, or make edits that correct problems - for "unregistered" answers, that's solved by giving you a temporary account that retains edit rights, comment rights, etc. (at least until you lose the cookie); if you posted anonymously under a normal account, would your edits and comments also be anonymous, or would you show up incongruously as yourself?
- We periodically publish a full set of data on posts, comments, edits, etc. that anyone can use; we'd have to decide whether or not to preserve anonymity in this data, and not just for authorship but also for edits, commentary, etc.
It's a big can of worms, which is why we've so far avoided opening it... But I do see the advantages as well.
[+] [-] tedmiston|9 years ago|reply
How great it would be if every site would subscribe to such high standards. Bravo, SO.
[+] [-] ssharp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rbobby|9 years ago|reply
How would they know?
[+] [-] CaptainZapp|9 years ago|reply
The absolute antibehavior of what you descrcribe I've recently experienced with Air Asia.
A few month ago they started to spam me with a newsletter I never requested. Last time I flew them was in the beginning of 2015 and I never subscribed for their crap.
The unsubscribe link on the mail does not work and after a significant amount of digging I found a way to unsubscribe by sending mail to [email protected].
Only that mail to this address is never delivered.
In essence there seems to be no way to unsubscribe from their list.
I mention that because it's infuriating that "reputable" companies think they can spam away with gusto without even the possibility to unsubscribe from their shit.
Here's a hint for you Air Asia: You are not reputable! You are on the same level as pushers of fake knock-off Viagra, purveyors of fake shlock Rolexes, and Nigerian scammers! And you will never, ever get an additional cent from me.
Scum!
[+] [-] my_ghola|9 years ago|reply
If their product is so great, they don't need to spam anybody, specially developers, to go look at it.
[+] [-] tracker1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jugurtha|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chinathrow|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|9 years ago|reply
SO is doing it right. But the community will very likely not care.
[+] [-] brianzelip|9 years ago|reply
> The truth is: we don’t care if our users use ad blockers on Stack Overflow. More accurately: we hope that they won’t, but we understand that some people just don’t like ads. Our belief is that if someone doesn’t like them, and they won’t click on them, any impressions served to them will only annoy them-- plus, serving ads to people who won’t click on them harms campaign performance.
[0] https://stackoverflow.blog/2016/02/why-stack-overflow-doesnt...!
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply
Good enough, in fact, that I'm whitelisting Stack Overflow from my adblocker. I don't do it often, I don't even do it for sites I like; the reality is that anyone using an automated ad network is at significant risk of serving malware, and I don't approve even if I'm protected. I don't visit Forbes at all anymore, ever, because they broke their users basic faith in "see our ads, and we won't destroy your machine".
But a promise to serve relevant, low-impact ads, chosen by actual humans? That's something I'm willing to support.
[+] [-] 0xmohit|9 years ago|reply
[0] http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/237062/does-stack-ex...
[+] [-] lucb1e|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dolguldur|9 years ago|reply
It's difficult to estimate its contribution to the world economy quantitatively, but I'd definitely say billions, many many billions.
[+] [-] chubot|9 years ago|reply
I agree that they make an enormous contribution to the world economy. Joel really did knock it out of the park -- remember expertsexchange? His goal was to get rid of that and it worked.
[+] [-] therealdrag0|9 years ago|reply
A thought provoking example I had pointed out to me recently is the GPS system, which was built and is maintained by the US government but is a free public service. The amount of public value from it is astronomical.
[+] [-] z3t4|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlunkr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] criddell|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latchkey|9 years ago|reply
The sales person was very persistent and available while the negotiations were happening to use their service (yes, you can get discounts). As soon as I paid, she disappeared and was never to be heard from again. No follow up at all.
I also got zero good jobs references for an extremely profitable tech business in the heart of downtown financial district in San Francisco. All the people who applied were basically spam and that wasn't any better than just posting on LinkedIn or HN for free.
Not really a complaint, just one small data point to consider.
[+] [-] Alupis|9 years ago|reply
Moderators are the real lifeblood of StackExchange. They spend countless hours ensuring their respective Sub Exchange hums along. Yes, it's a volunteer "job", but it's a job none-the-less - especially since once you become a Moderator, it's more-or-less expected you have certain responsibilities and obligations. Given StackExchange makes a pretty healthy profit off the efforts of the "volunteers", and given StackExchange is a for profit company, it seems fitting they should have to pay for the labor that creates their profit.
Currently, StackExchange kicks back and rakes in money via various avenues, but then doesn't have to pay staff to actually manage the growing plethora of Sub Exchanges.
We all give companies grief for underpaying or mis-classifying employees, but somehow everyone overlooks StackExchange.
I believe it an accurate statement to say, StackExchange would not be a thing today, if it were not for the innumerable hours worked for free by a growing army of "volunteers".
[+] [-] Latty|9 years ago|reply
Moderators not being staff means that the community has more say in how the sites function, which is a thing people want. It's hard - communities want to police themselves, not be dictated unto by a controlling body. As soon as you start paying the moderators, they are under your sway.
I also don't think it'd be easy to create a fair remuneration system that didn't incentivise the wrong thing, or create pressure on moderators that they don't currently have.
[+] [-] collyw|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chiph|9 years ago|reply
It's terrific that they're doing this. The first two links are what the CAN-SPAM Act requires. The "feedback" link is not a result of complying with CAN-SPAM, but is a good idea for any online business.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can...
[+] [-] dep_b|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cdnsteve|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dtnewman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blowski|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sean_patel|9 years ago|reply
Source: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/214284/245495
[+] [-] mrfusion|9 years ago|reply
Do you guys remember experts exchange.com?
[+] [-] beachy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|9 years ago|reply
It made me quite angry when they locked up my content. I switched to posting solutions on my blog then. Now I tend to stick stuff on Stack rather than blog it.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lordnacho|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] otar|9 years ago|reply
StackOverflow is so powerful resource on the Internet, alongside with Wikipedia and Internet Archive.
I wish I could donate two ways: 1) Yearly or monthly (subscription) donations, like on Wikipedia 2) I would be extremely happy to donate authors of some great, life-saving answers. I feel so excited when I find the right answer after searching a solution for hours.
Just shut up and take my money!
[+] [-] jack9|9 years ago|reply
So they do direct deals mostly, which is antiquated and probably to preserve their branding as a "tech site".
> Did you know we have a lot of unpaid inventory on Stack Overflow every month?
This is what trying to guess your avails with direct ends up doing. Leaving inventory unmonetized. Typically, you get paid less for less of your inventory trying to do monthly manual trafficking.
All they do is display, so it's rather silly to quibble about CPMs in the 25 cent range...until you look at the traffic and realize that translates to real money.
[+] [-] ocoster|9 years ago|reply
You lose control over what is being shown, you are diluting your brand and you are at risk of alienating your users.
At Stack Overflow we are not willing to make this trade off.
[+] [-] Latty|9 years ago|reply
More importantly, the automated stuff is a huge security risk, and will generally annoy your users when someone puts out something they shouldn't, even if it's not a security issue.
Sure, they could saturate the pages with more crap adverts no one wants, and they would sell for less (because they would be less effective), and they'd piss off their user base.
SO has long been one of the very, very few on my adblocking whitelist. I don't dislike adverts as a core idea, but 99% of advertising online is invasive, annoying and useless.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cerved|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ProAm|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] subhobroto|9 years ago|reply
> I am extremely protective of our users. You can ask anyone who works here. It’s is my very strong belief that we have a built up a trust with the community that is not easily earned and is impossible to replace. I want to work for a company that respects that trust, and I do.
> How much money we make is a direct proxy for how much we are helping our users. We focus on maximizing how we help users in order to make a great business. Very few companies have done this successfully, and we take great pride in the fact that we’re one of them.
I can see that they believe in this. As I wrote in my Quora answer https://www.quora.com/Is-Stack-Exchange-still-growing-in-201...:
"They are gaining a lot of goodwill because they have committed to attach a high value to user experience over monetary gain (they learnt from sites in the past that lost their community because they plastered the site with ads. Needless to say, those sites eventually failed)"
I remember other sites that did something similar but they got lost on the way and sold their users away and ultimately fell to disrepair because no one came back.
I hope they continue to stay true to this course.
> We don’t because if we don’t have anything even remotely good to show you, we shouldn’t.
> And we don’t want to use an automated system that selects some ads for us. We looked at this. It didn’t allow us the control we required to maintain the level of quality we want to maintain. We have intentionally left a lot of money on the table. Sacrificing quality is not what we want to be known for. We believe there are better ways.
In my limited experience with online advertising, one metric that almost all advertisers ask for are page views.
I believe this is a fundamentally flawed metric. It can be gamed easily and ultimately targeting ads by page views lead to a suboptimal user experience.
I would rather not show an ad than show an irrelevant ad.
SE is bigger than just page views. It’s a successful ecosystem that has a vibrant community behind it that will grow and nurture itself.
It's great to see that their management would rather not show an ad than show an irrelevant ad.
> If you have time though, I’d appreciate if you told me why in the comments so I/we can do better.
Introduce anonymous answers.
I know of very talented developers who would like to answer questions without setting up (throwaway) accounts. Spam is a non-issue here unless spammers model answers like good answers (of which we have a pretty large set to train from)
[+] [-] wool_gather|9 years ago|reply
>Spam is a non-issue here unless spammers model answers like good answers
Many people give answers broad latitude as far as "goodness". Users can also be easily confused: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/337843/review-audit-..., and even moderators are sometimes inclined towards leniency: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/333722/how-is-this-q...
A multi-layered system, starting with some filtering right at the beginning, is, I think, the best way to keep illicit ads under control. Stack Overflow has very high value as a target for spammers and very low amounts of spam compared to that value; I'd really like it to stay that way.
I hate having to register at every new site, too, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable if you're actually trying to post.
[+] [-] jc4p|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RHSeeger|9 years ago|reply
Or, if you are worried about spam, you could allow signed in users to "post a question|answer anonymously". This would not allow users to see who posted the question, but would allow things like statistics (to track spammers and the like).
[+] [-] Shog9|9 years ago|reply
But, I'd guess what you're probably after is something else entirely: a way to have an account, and post answers using that account, but not have those answers associated publicly with that account. This has been requested a few times over the years, but... It's a bit of a troublesome idea:
- Spam / trolling (the kind performed by humans, not bots) often depends on being able to stay just a little bit ahead of the folks who are trying to stop you. Anything that can buy you a few more minutes of activity before being blocked can upset that balance; sure, we could remove anonymity for moderators, but there's a psychological impact here: if you think you can get away with something, you're more likely to try.
- Reputation is tracked on a per-account basis, and most of the accounting there is public: again, this serves multiple purposes, both for the author themselves (they're encouraged to become "invested" in the site by contributing in exchange for privileges) and for the greater community (privileges aren't handed out capriciously, they're earned in ways that can be tracked).
- What about things like edits and comments? Presumably you'd want to be able to respond to comments on your answers, or make edits that correct problems - for "unregistered" answers, that's solved by giving you a temporary account that retains edit rights, comment rights, etc. (at least until you lose the cookie); if you posted anonymously under a normal account, would your edits and comments also be anonymous, or would you show up incongruously as yourself?
- We periodically publish a full set of data on posts, comments, edits, etc. that anyone can use; we'd have to decide whether or not to preserve anonymity in this data, and not just for authorship but also for edits, commentary, etc.
It's a big can of worms, which is why we've so far avoided opening it... But I do see the advantages as well.
Related:
- http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/198/should-there-be-...
- http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/177154/posting-anony...
Disclaimer: I work for Stack Overflow.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]