The downfall of Quora (2013)

[anbala]

This is the email circulating the Valley. The high profile venture capitalist's name has been redacted along with that of the recipient.

February 1, 2013

[name redacted],

Since you asked what I think about Quora and its latest pivot, here's my answer. It's probably far more than you expected but bear with me. From its early days the big question about this site has been "can an almost unlimited supply of SiliconValley cash and hype turn a mediocre idea into a success?"

[lelandriordan]

This article nails it. I remember when Quora first came out, I thought that it was a great idea, like a stack overflow for the masses. Fast forward to now though and I find myself avoiding it at all costs. Quora seems willing to try any and everything to fix itself except for solving its most glaring and obvious problem, its closed ecosystem. On mobile it is ridiculous when you do a search in browser and click a Quora link it forces you to install the app to see the answer. If you do make the mistake of installing the app you are then inundated with useless notifications about things you don't care about. I know that there is good information hidden in there, but its a terrible strategy to make people jump through hoops to access it. Meanwhile Stack Overflow became Stack Exchange with sub-sites for more and more topics thus transforming itself into what Quora could have/should have been in the first place. Its open nature has driven its growth to a top 200 Alexa rank while Quora seems destined to continue its semi-annual pivoting.

[jbinto]

I mentally blacklisted Quora when it was proudly US only (I'm Canadian). Their reasoning was extremely dubious: something about "cultural differences" and "language barriers" preventing "high quality content".

Foolishly, I gave them another chance when they opened registration worldwide. The second strike was when I found out that they showed the Googlebot different content, à la Experts Exchange.

And the third strike was the heavy handed social integration. Can't post (or even read content) unless you link with Facebook, etc.

It's a shame. As others have noted here I think the web could use an improved version of "Yahoo Answers"; something with a StackOverflow feel. Especially since Google Answers (the one you paid bounties for) went the way of the dodo in 2006.

[tejon]

> As others have noted here I think the web could use an improved version of "Yahoo Answers"; something with a StackOverflow feel.

It's odd that nothing fills this gap. Slant.co comes close, but is built around "what" rather than "why" or "how" -- useful in its own right, but not the same.

I wonder if the problem is simply that Yahoo! Questions, Ask.com and Quora are all just too well-known and nobody wants to take them on, despite how terrible they are? Considering the celebrated audacity of startup culture I'd honestly be surprised if this is the case, but on the other hand I'm not finding a lot of other compelling explanations.

I suppose one other possibility is that aforementioned sites have soured the public on the genre to the point that when someone says, "It's kind of like Yahoo Questions or Ask.com," the immediate response is "Ick."

[not_a_test_user]

> I mentally blacklisted Quora when it was proudly US only (I'm Canadian). Their reasoning was extremely dubious: something about "cultural differences" and "language barriers" preventing "high quality content".

This was their first and final strike for me. If they didn't want me why would I want to sign up now?

[ecspike]

I mentally blocked it when started becoming a sea of "Why did this H-list programming celebrity join X company?"

[yuhong]

You do need an account, but you don't need to link it to Facebook.

[tptacek]

This piece starts out teasing some kind of business or market analysis about Quora, which would be interesting to read, but it almost immediately descends completely and permanently into Drama, some of which seems like it's only really intelligible to people who spend a lot of time on Quora.

It's not a worthwhile read, and we'd be better off discussing Quora based on virtually any other story about it.

[cloakandswagger]

That's because Quora is a social platform, and it's flaws are primarily cultural.

You may or may not be able to make a legitimate business case for the site, but the point is that Quora will still fail due to its toxic, insipid culture.

[tokenadult]

we'd be better off discussing Quora based on virtually any other story about it.

Do you have any specific suggestions? Adding one or two in as an edit to your comment would be much appreciated. I'd like to have a balanced perspective on Quora's place in the industry.

[swartkrans]

I noticed you get unwarrantedly defensive when it comes to negativity surrounding popular individuals or well-known companies. I say unwarrantedly because you usually write very awesome posts with lots of detail, but when you spring to the defense of the GitHub founder who fell from grace, or in this case Quora (and there are other instances I remember to some degree), you peremptorily want to end the discussion without any good reason and just issue some dismissive insults.

It never works, though. The conversations continue. People have good reason to not like Quora. They've had a user-unfriendly attitude problem, and they've been less than nice to their employees as well. I personally can't stand it when some people are treated with contempt, but I guess this sort of thing doesn't bother you or maybe you don't pick up on it.

[junto]

Quota. ?share=whatever

That to me sums up the site in its entirety. A content SEO Google cheater that tries to con people into signing up to boost its user numbers

They should have looked to StackOverflow as a good example of how you build a proper community, and more importantly, nurture it.

Good ridance.

[dozenal]

Stackoverflow has of a lot of terrible answers that get voted up by people who aren't equipped to evaluate them properly, and closed threads when anyone starts actual substantive discussions. It also suffers from lack of decent rewards for contribution. That's not what I would consider a good community.

[kamaal]

>>tries to con people into signing up to boost its user numbers

I never understood this. As long as there is a infinite supply of free email accounts available. Any body who asks people to sign up merely to read content is just fooling themselves into thinking people are going to supply genuine email id's to read stuff.

These days I keep a email id handy for purposes like these.

Want me to sign up? Sure why not? But don't expect it to be the id which I use to do serious stuff.

[booruguru]

> StackOverflow

StackOverflow's community is toxic waste compared to Quora. The site is somehow successful despite the founders/community's best efforts to destroy it.

[antr]

This issue hits a home run with me: "Ideological Moderators".

I was a very active Quora user on 2010-2011, I'd visit the site over 10 times a day, I would write any answers on Word, make sure they were thorough, well written, etc, before I replied to question. I made an effort, both offline and online. What I really enjoyed was the initial community, the well thought questions and answers. During this 18-24 month period I also got thousands of upvotes, lots of thank you messages for my answers, etc.

One day an army of moderators came along. These moderators weren't Quora staff, but volunteers. I get it, it takes considerable man power to go through many of those questions and answers. I can work with that.

It was when I asking a question on movies & documentaries that I had my first encounter with them. I can't recall the exact question I asked, but it something along the lines "what are the most interesting documentaries released in 2011?". One moderator, without contacting me, changed the question to something more specific, he added a sub-genre to the question. I got notified of the change, went back, and changed it to the original question. After a couple of hours I get a message from the moderator telling me that that question isn't a "good/relevant" question (I'm paraphrasing). I ask why, and I get told that "You can't ask generic questions". Once more, I change the question to the original one and ignoring the random argument by the moderator. Then this moderator contacted a second moderator in order to gang-up on me, supporting each other random policies in order to make a statement.

It was then that I realised that these people didn't like to moderate Quora for the content quality, but for the feeling of 'power' and control moderation creates. I noticed that these guys liked being moderators because they enjoyed telling others what to do, with no regards for the content, quality, or users. That same day I deleted all of my questions, answers, and Quora account. I haven't used it again since then, and it feels great.

[Karunamon]

This struck me as more representative of other sites. Like, the one we're on now:

The No Humor Rule: Humor is a de facto taboo on Quora. While the occasional demonstration of witwill evoke no more than a scowl and shake of the head from the community, more regular use will draw a barrage of down votes and risk the possibility of banishment. The staff attempts to deny that this istrue but fails to convince anyone. Many Quorans simply don't appreciate humor and will automatically down vote any post that contains it.

s/quora/HN/g

That said, the author of this piece tries really, really hard to bash on Quora for their login policy. You have to be logged in to contribute or to read.

Honestly? I think they're reading far too much into that.

[DanBC]

Most "funny" comments are just not funny. Comments that don't add anything to the conversation should[1] be downvoted. Funny comments that are funny tend to get upvotes. Humour is harder than spouting movie quotes or similar meme-based stuff.

[1] downvoting on HN is currently perplexing. Easiest way to get downvotes is to make a post with a clear but simple factual error - something easily fixed with a comment and an edit. In another thread someone was told to "go and die" and that comment is still live after an hour or so.

[simias]

I agree with some of the points the author makes (although I've never contributed to quora myself) but I think he's misguided there.

In my opinion the problem with humour is not that it can be misunderstood by international readers, it's that it's very hard to find the sweet spot where the comment threads turn into a competition to find the wittiest/stupidest joke/pun on the article being discussed.

I think the issue is that most jokes don't really contribute to the discussion and unlike slashdot you can't motivate your vote (+5 funny vs. +5 insightful). There's also the problem that humour is hard to judge objectively and is likely to annoy as many users as it amuses.

That being said, if you make a very skillful, spiritual and/or topical joke on HN you might be upvoted, I've seen it happen in the past (with things like poems, lyrics and other "not-so-serious" content).

Also, of all the points the author makes, this one is the only one IMO that's really applicable to HN so I don't think it's possible to draw a parallel between Quora and HN (if that's what you were trying to do).

[minimaxir]

A trend I've noticed among Quora posts that attempt to be funny is that they are bad at doing it, such as using Reddit-level responses contained with puns/memes. That type of "humor" died years ago.

[lucb1e]

s/HN/StackOverflow/

But I'm not sure it's a bad thing on either HN or StackOverflow. On SO I think it's far worse than on HN, but it might be necessary to keep things under control.

[mullingitover]

> Honestly? I think they're reading far too much into that.

I honestly hated them for their login policy. They deserved to fail purely for that stunt alone.

[tim333]

I've noticed the lack of humour enthusiasm on HN too. I guess maybe as the article suggests it does not translate well internationally.

[vezzy-fnord]

I've found that HN is overall tolerant of the occasional bit of humor or even snark, definitely to a point where you do not feel constrained.

[protonfish]

I agree the rules for quality content over nonsense at HN have been widely overshot. I wish comments and submissions were judged on value alone - interesting ideas, new facts, entertaining reading - irrespective of content including some silliness or even gasp potty-language.

I have been criticized and downvoted many times for being "snarky" even if I made a factual and well-reasoned comment. This is the goddamn Internet, not tea with the fucking queen. I'd prefer a community that values substance over style and passion over politeness. (Not like there is anything better than HN and I just got downvoting privileges so I am not going anywhere for a long time. Bwa ha ha ha!)

And I get it, I can be a real dick. Ask anyone. I don't blame anyone for being mad at me occasionally but I wish others would have enough tolerance to get over their delicate feelings enough to appreciate content that does not jibe with their own self-delusions or is written with uncomfortable emotion.

I am feeling a little burned by this today. This morning I clicked a link off the home page to read a rant by weev against people bashing bash and Stallman. Reading that felt like letting loose a fart built up after a long job interview. It was a joy to read something so frank and passionate whether I agree with it or not. (And in this case he made some excellent points.) It made me realize how stuffy and afraid of breaking consensus everything else on HN was. I hit my back button to comment and it was no longer anywhere to be found.

Shame on you, HN.

[iamben]

Some of the comments here are really interesting. A lot of general Quora negativity?

I think the weekly (semi personalised?) Quora 'digest' is one of the only bacn emails I'll open pretty much without fail, almost always ending up on the site. Some of the questions/answers are fascinating.

[parkov]

I also enjoyed the Quora digests until one day the links stopped going directly to the threads but all pointed to a feed page. I assumed this was another dark pattern to boost pageviews and unsubscribed.

[quadrangle]

Wait, Quora is actually a thing? People actually have content there? I've only visited a couple times and saw that I couldn't access anything. I assumed that the answers didn't really exist, and it was just a scammy thing to get you hooked in. Kinda like how a site might use some popular keyword but the actual content isn't helpful at all.

Who the heck are these people that actually use it? Why??

[cloakandswagger]

Fake exclusivity wrapped in a shell of pseudo-intellectualism.

[gprasanth]

Quora's auto linkification of text seems to be excellent. clueless.it indeed.

[currysausage]

Not even a space can prevent the linkification: day.%20So; backstabbing.%20To

This really is quality engineering.

[hunvreus]

For a few seconds I thought this was an actual site.

[enraged_camel]

I clicked it. :(

[bithive123]

I thought Quora's philosophy was "blur the page and cover it with a modal signup form".

[andrea_s]

That's... A fairly long rant answering a short question ("what I think about Quora and its latest pivot").

Not that I'm here to defend Quora, but this level of heat makes me wonder whether the unnamed VC has some ongoing beef with it.

[Communitivity]

"Quora's philosophy can be summed up as why should the serfs get a share if they were dumb enough to work for free in the first place?"

Different currencies. The owners of Quora are being paid in US dollars, the content creators in both attention and reputation. Both attention and reputation are currencies that will translate to dollars more and more as we progress towards an, in-part, reputation-based economy. With everyone having access to information what will matter will be your curation of that information, and your commentary. The better these are the better your reputation will be in those content areas, and the more your endorsement will be worth (in both reputation and dollars).

[rustyconover]

"A reputation based economy is what we're moving towards", we should be resistant to that. I think it would be fair to say a "reputation based economy" is a synonym for crony capitalism -- I'll only do business with you if I know you.

This is a socially unfair economy at best, and at worst will generate inequality as social cliques will continue to preserve and enrich themselves and "the people they know". If we're going to move more toward social and economic fairness this isn't the direction to go.

I'm comfortable knowing that Whole Foods takes dollars rather than Klout points or retweets. That way anyone who can make a dollar can eat and not worry about starving because they failed to impress some arbiter of social currency. Reputations aren't fungible hence they are flawed as a just economic currency.

[orlybadass]

"progress" towards "reputation-based economy"? wtf is this anyway? Sounds like sucker-economics to me, just like "we don't have a lot of money to pay you right now but this project will be great for your career!". To hell with that.

[privong]

> Different currencies. The owners of Quora are being paid in US dollars, the content creators in both attention and reputation.

I think this is spot-on. I answered questions on quora for a while, but eventually left once I realized I was getting nothing out of it besides (some) "reputation" on a closed-off website. The reputation (and any associated ego/self-esteem boost) might be enough of a reward for some to justify continuing, though.

> Both attention and reputation are currencies that will translate to dollars more and more as we progress towards an, in-part, reputation-based economy.

I am not sure this is or will be univerally true. It does work for some people, though they seem to be a minority. Not every twitter-celebrity can convert that status into a way to support themselves financially.

[silvaring]

@Communitivity, you said "With everyone having access to information what will matter will be your curation of that information, and your commentary". The problem with this view is the curation of the curators that is occuring in our reputation based economy. When popularity is the main arbiter of quality the cult of unfair celebrity runs wild, just like in the non-internet world. You need to assign fairness to content, otherwise its like what rustyconover has said, its just another system of social inequality that benefits only a small minority.

[fredsted]

I kind of feel these sites - Yahoo Answers, Quora - are just serving users not wanting to Google things.

Everyone has questions. Questions can be googled.

Granted, Googling stuff is hard.

Even though you can just stick a question into Google and get some reasonable feedback, it's still hard to know who to trust: I read most students have no clue on what to trust when googling for school assignments. It's not taught there, they're just expected to know. And it's one of those things that is crucial to fully understand things in the society of today.

Of course, people want definitive answers. If there's a definitive answer for something, it's probably in a place like wikipedia.

For something that doesn't have a definitive answer and which can be discussed, there's discussion forums like reddit and HN that a great for this purpose.

In my mind, Quora solves very little, and the way they force you to login really irks me – information should be free. (Just make it publicly accessible already! Make dumps and APIs available like wikipedia. Make it free!) And then there's all the other issues the author describes in this article, especially the inane questions.

I have to say, lots of interesting discussions have happened on Quora - mainly due to the participation of interesting people, not random 13-year olds. That's still a huge accomplishment and why I hope Quora sticks around, but more in form of a general discussion/opinion/experience platform.

[DanBC]

A surprising fierce critique of quora.

I'm not sure there's anything someone wanting to build a community can learn from this article. Which is a shame, because we should really be trying to learn from experience. It would counter the fuckin stupid ideas some people have. (ie: real names only to combat hostility and trolling. The obvious counter would be the comment sections of most newspapers.)

[001sky]

The only pessimism warranted is that people can't differentiate experimentalism from failure. Empirical data on failure is under-valued. Just like how academics never publish all the shit that goes wrong. Tons could be learned/saved from publishing negative results. After all, its all in the interpreation. Having bad empirical examples heightens contrast and differentiation, which is often a good thing.

[junto]

After thinking about this for a while it struck me that Quora is simply this decades version of expertsexchange.com.

It has the same "register to read what we slyly showed Google but not you, unless you bump our daily user sign up rate to impress investors" dark pattern going on.

[seige]

I remember once being very passionate about Quora and I really wanted to join their team.

After doing my research, I came to get data that they are extremely biased to only take ex-Stanford, ex-Facebook people. This was back in 2011-2012 so I hope things have changed atleast from that angle.

My friend interviewed with them and he came back with a very bad experience and was extremely pissed off that he was almost ridiculed for not having cracked it so far in his career.

Anyways, their practices have been very dubious from the start. They should thank those deep pockets of the founders.

[qq66]

This does not read like it was written by a VC, at least not in an investment context. An investor would not express concern that a user-generated content company was not sharing economics with its contributors. In fact, a company's ability to attract contributors without sharing economics with users (e.g. Facebook) would impress an investor.

[whyenot]

Written in 2013.

Please also include the date when submitting links like this.

[dgreensp]

I'm acquainted with the founders of Quora, and I don't think making "fast money" was a primary motivation in founding Quora. They set out to create a question/answer site with a better user experience and a better community.

The business model seems, from the outside, to be the belief that, like Facebook and Twitter, they will make money somehow eventually after becoming a runaway success, even it takes years to monetize.

[tokenadult]

They set out to create a question/answer site with a better user experience and a better community.

Their user interface choices always looked seriously weird to anyone familiar with almost any other website. It's beyond annoying to me to see a Quora link shared by friends (and actually quite rare for me to see a Quora link shared by anyone), because I never know if I will be able to read the Quora thread without logging in or not. Today, in this Hacker News thread, both the OP and the links submitted so far have been instantly visible to me, but that is not my usual experience with Quora. Rather, my usual experience, through several changes of Quora policy, has been to see nag screens asking me to sign up before I see any of Quora's content.

[grimlck]

Actions speak louder than words, and I don't see how requiring logins to view answers results in a better user experience and community.

I would guess that since it is socially uncouth to say their motivation for the site is to try to make a lot of money, they instead state a more noble sounding mission whenever asked about motivations.

[api]

"more fast money could be madeby starting a for-profit version of Wikipedia with the end game being to eventually IPO-it."

The whole "Zero to One" campaign by Thiel et. al. seems to be an attempt to thrust a stake through the heart of this kind of thing.