Silicon Valley is again drinking its own Kool-Aid; it is looking at the world through its own prism.
— Vivek Wadhwa on TechCrunch
Quora has that certain magic that only one or two startups a year have. When it first launched it seemed kinda dumb, a slightly better version of q&a sites from before, that all flailed into spam. But it became exceptionally clear very shortly that it wasn’t like those other sites. that the product, combined with the launch strategy of concentrating on a certain group of people (which is how facebook launched as well) made for a very nice product. Now the question is can they turn the corner. I think they will.
— TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington, in a comment
Oooh, controversy!
In Life imitates art imitates life … I’ve been talking why I come to the same conclusion as Vivek, so I was looking forward to seeing what he had to say on. And there’s some very good stuff, including an excellent point I hadn’t seen elsewhere, talking the important of topic-specific and community-oriented Q&A sites:
This is where people with common interests will gather and exchange ideas. Â For example, for people seeking legal advice, there is LawPivot, and for businesses looking for experts, there is Focus. Â Â For techies, there are sites like StackOverflow, Slashdot, Hacker News; for children, there is Togetherville; for business students, there is PoetsandQuants; for entrepreneurs in India, there is StartupQnA; for Indian accountants, there is CAClubIndia; and China has its own groups, and so do many other countries.
Indeed! So I added another bullet to my answer on How would Quora be different if it prioritized diversity.
And in the comments, superstar VC Fred Wilson makes a very interesting diversity-related point as well:
i’m very bullish on vertical Q&A services as evidenced by our investment in stackoverflow, which is a great Q&A service for software engineers. stack also has serverfault for tech/ops people, and is building out a whole network of verticals with their stackexchange platform
i think quora is doing a great job servicing the techcrunch crowd with Q&A needs. can it add other verticals? sure. should it do that under one all encompassing service at the quora.com domain? not sure that’s a good idea
So I added something related to that too.  Other ideas welcome.
The funny thing is, though, I actually disagree with most of what Vivek is saying in the rest of the article. For example, a major thrust of his argument is that he thinks the quality of the answers will inevitably decline. Here’s why:
The people whose opinion I value, such as Quora’s #1 respondent, Robert Scoble, will simply stop posting on the site when they get drowned out by the noise from the masses.  They will turn away after having their posts voted down (so that they look less important than their peers) and being personally subjected to the types of mindless, anonymous attacks that you see in the comments section of TechCrunch.
Hmm. Do I detect a Silicon Valley prism? Anyhow …
Yes, if the best posts get voted down everybody will lose interest. If posters get attacked, they’ll leave (and Quora’s had some incidents already). But none of this is inevitable.  Other sites have solved this; and Quora’s paying attention to all of these things — with rare exceptions, the tone is a lot more civil than TechCrunch.
But when there are hundreds of answers to a given question, by people you have never heard of (often with fictitious names), how will you separate the wheat from the chaff?  And how will you distinguish fact from fiction?  You certainly can’t trust the rankings of the respondents when these rankings are themselves generated by Quora users.
Once again, this is a problem that’s been solved by other sites — in a variety of ways. Naver, Yahoo Answers, Stack Overflow … all of these sites involve hundreds of answers and people with fictitious names.  As if by magic, the wheat gets separated.  Well-designed crowdsourcing works. Q&A is exactly the kind of task where diverse groups outperform.
Unlike Facebook, where everyone socializes, and Twitter, where ordinary people tell their friends what they are thinking, a Quora-like tool is only for those who want to learn what their intellectual peers are saying on, or to research, a particular topic.
Not really. Most of the people who visit a Q&A site come via search or a link, and just want an answer to their question. Most of the participants come to give feedback on a piece of knowledge, and then the next step is to contribute something of your own or critique something somebody else has said. Quora only needs a relatively-small number of people hanging out there to be incredibly lucrative.
So while I agree with Vivek’s overall conclusion — a lot of Kool-Aid is getting drunk here — my reasoning is different. Quora’s key challenge is to broaden their base beyond techie guys. They don’t seem to be doing anything about it.
Look at things from a different prism, as an entrepreneur, this is pretty exciting news. The Q&A space is very attractive: Yahoo! Answers and Answers.com have been top 20 web sites in the US — in early 2008 Yahoo Answers! was important enough that Oprah helped promote it and both Democratic presidential candidates posted questions there.* And with Google’s plummeting search quality highlighting the limitations of algorithmic search, there’s a chunk of the search market up for grabs. So it’s a very cluttered space; check out the lists of Quora competitors and other Q&A sites.
How to stand out from the pack? Well, the most-hyped new general entry is Quora — who isn’t paying attention to diversity. Their prime contender StackOverflow has no female developers or designers and is starting from its base of excellent sites targeting the rather un-diverse audience of programmers and IT pros. So even if one or both of those sites together dominate the market for “techie guys and others who like the same kinds of user interfaces they do”, there are plenty of other audiences up for grabs.
Sounds like an opportunity to me.
jon
* Obama’s had over 17,000 responses, although if I recall correctly Oprah got more.
Quora | 23-Jan-11 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
What can be said to Vivek Wadhwa’s criticism on TechCrunch “Why I Don’t Buy the Quora Hype”?…
I agree with Vivek’s conclusion: Quora’s over-hyped, and Silicon Valley’s drinking its own Kool-Aid. I disagree with most of his arguments though. Other sites like Yahoo Answers and Naver have addressed the issues he brings up — extracting the wh…
Tweets that mention Liminal states :: Prisms, Kool-Aid, and an Opportunity (a response to Vivek Wadhwa on Quora) -- Topsy.com | 23-Jan-11 at 3:04 pm | Permalink
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jon Pincus, Jon Pincus. Jon Pincus said: Prisms, Kool-Aid, and an Opportunity (a response to @vwadhwa on Quora hype) http://bit.ly/qvwresp with a quote from @fredwilson […]
Liminal states :: Life imitates art imitates life? | 24-Jan-11 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
[…] ** or a competitor like StackOverflow. aren’t they a contender? Update, January 24: Hah, I was right. See the comment from superstar VC Fred Wilson I quote in Prisms, Kool-Aid, and an Opportunity. […]
Liminal states :: #mooreandme and #p2: learnings for progressives on Twitter (DRAFT) | 25-Jan-11 at 8:57 am | Permalink
[…] telesummit or February 2009 Feminism 2.0 conference.  As a starting point, the suggestions for how the privacy community can leverage a weekly chat for advocacy and activism apply equally well to […]
jon | 29-Jan-11 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
Vivek’s got another article up on TechCrunch, on The Future of Search, talking about an upcoming panel at Beyond the Search Box. It’s a timely event, and Esther Dyson’s talk on “The Future of Search is a Verb†should be very interesting. As she points out, it’s not a new idea; the Bill Gates quote she uses as a title is at least five years old — in fact, this was one of the areas the Ad Astra project I led at Microsoft investigated. Esther’s The Future of Internet Search from last year made some good points, and as she predicted Google now returns a good list of pages for “movies Roman Polanski directed”. But nobody’s really changed the user experience, and even if I can find good results they still doesn’t really make it particularly easy for me to accomplish whatever verb I have in mind.*
In his post, Vivek mentioned some of the topics he wants to discuss: how are search engines save the web, how do they differ, and what’s the future of search. Vivek also asked for suggestions on other topics. Here’s a few:
* rent, buy, recommend to friends, win an argument, link to in a blog post … in fact “link to” has gotten harder over the last year because Google now munges the URLs in their search results to improve their tracking and monetization.
jon | 31-Jan-11 at 8:25 am | Permalink
Robert Scoble’s rant Why I was wrong about Quora as a blogging service threw some gasoline on the flames; Dan Kaplan of SalesForce responded with Sorry, Scoble, Quora is not your playground in Quora Review; Michael Arrington and MG Siegler jumped in on TechCrunch* [1, 2]; and then Robert replied with The mistakes I made in Quora.
Pass the popcorn!
Drama aside, there’s a lot of great information here for anybody thinking about the space. For example:
And on Hacker News, Erik Starck and andymatic had some great points too:
Yeah really. Or more accurately, it’s the people and the software. >grins<
* for those keeping score at home, TechCrunch has now done at least four front-page posts on Quora in the last 10 days. Of course the last thing Quora needs at this point is more TechCrunch readers (or Scoble fans for that matter) as members — their challenge is to broaden there base. Still. Any publicity is good publicity.
** Speaking of which, Noam Cohen has a good article on Wikipedia’s gender-skewed contributions in the NY Times, with some great quotes from Jane Margolis (author of Unlocking the Clubhouse), amongst others.
jon | 03-Feb-11 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Aditi Muralidharan’s Digital Humanities and the Future of Search was one of the highlights of the Future of Search event. So was Esther Dyson’s talk (although it seemed to me that a lot of the panelists misunderstood her point about verbs). Marti Harris had great things to say too, including insights about the trend towards longer queries, the importance of collaborative work, and query building and results synthesis.
Most of the media attention, though, when to the Microsoft/Google dustup Kara Swisher describes in The White Pleather Honeypot Smackdown and Vivek summarizes here. Rich Skedra from Blekko was on the panel too, and didn’t get to talk that much, but what he did say was interesting: their decision to ban “content mills” from their index, the surprisingly low hardware investment to do web-scale search these days, and the way they think of slashtags.
And I don’t think anybody mentioned diversity. What a surprise.
jon | 03-Feb-11 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
The debate about whether Microsoft is copying Google’s results has continued since then. I’ve thrown in a few comments on Hacker News, debating ethics with a Google engineer and talking about cognitive bubbles. And of course there’s discussion on Quora. Overall opinion is split, but there seems more support for Microsoft’s stance.
Update, February 5: Danny Sullivan’s Bing: Why Google’s Wrong In Its Accusations is a good update, after a conversation with my former colleague Stefan Weitz. Juan Carlos Perez’ Google’s copying accusation called ‘silly’ in IT World quotes various people including Charlene Li, who notes “Google isn’t used to having competition. You look at this incident and you wonder why they are doing this. It feels amateurish in a way, a kind of ‘they’re not playing fair’ attitude Instead of making your competition look bad, something like this makes you look petty. This doesn’t reflect well on Google. I would think they would be above this.” And Kara Swisher’s Google’s Bing Attack Has Larry Page Written All Over It has some interesting comparison’s between Google’s new CEO and Bill Gates.
jon | 03-Feb-11 at 8:23 pm | Permalink
Meanwhile Answers.com has been acquired for $127M — at least maybe: as Nicholas Carlson reports on Business Insider, shareholders think it’s undervalued and may try to stop the deal:
jon | 04-Feb-11 at 4:05 pm | Permalink
Chris Crum’s DuckDuckGo Follows Content Farm Banning With Promoting wikiHow Content on WebProNews quotes DDG founder Gabriel Weinberg and WikiHow founder Jack Herrick
Yeah, really. Can you say “sea change”? On HackerNews, I commented
There’s a lot of great information about the content industry in the article. For example:
On GigaOm, Mathew Ingram talks with Herrick’s former eHow colleague Josh Hannah about how Demand Media’s model is flawed. Hannah’s also got an excellent Quora answer discussing why eHow ranked so well on Google. One of the things he mentions:
jon | 13-Feb-11 at 8:50 am | Permalink
Google continues to take some lumps. Experian Hitwise released a study claiming that users were significantly more likely to find a link worth clicking on via Bing and Yahoo! searches (81.5%) than Google (65.5%). Google’s Matt Cutts pushed back with some criticisms of the methodology, but the headlines mostly said “Bing beats Google”.
Now TechCrunch Michael Arrington has piled on with Search Still Sucks, including this excellent observation:
Yeah really. From the Hacker News discussion:
Liminal states :: Q: What should I read to find more about the Q&A space? A: Here’s some links. | 05-Mar-11 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
[…] right now. Here’s some links to complement my own posts Life imitates art imitates life, Prisms, Kool-aid, and Opportunity, and What do you think of this one-line pitch for […]
jon | 18-Mar-11 at 11:14 am | Permalink
A good example of where search engines fall short …
I’m thinking of getting a domain in Canada. Who should I use? Google’s results aren’t great; the top thread is four years old, and the rest of the top five aren’t particularly helpful:
Bing’s a little better: a thread from 2009 on the top, nothing else helpful in the top five. Ask is better yet, with a very helpful thread from 2010.
Sounds like a good job for a Q&A site! Here’s Yahoo! Answers’ results:
Oh well. I asked the question, and we’ll see if I get any response.
Quora’s question/search box did a good job pointing me to an existing answer:
Useful, although without any voting or supporting comments it’s hard to know how much to weigh this opinion.
That said the Quora result is far from the best information out there. After wading through a few links from Google a thread on DNForum from just a couple of weeks ago. So I’d say there’s still some room for improvement all around ….
jon | 09-Apr-11 at 11:51 am | Permalink
I’m flashing! Back in 2006, the Ad Astra project proposed a strategy for Microsoft to outflank Google by leveraging its employee base and social technologies. One of the key insights: social computing technologies allow a company to tap into the combined energy of employees and their networks. This can be a huge asset — and one that potentially grows non-linearly as a company grows. Alas, Microsoft took another approach, investing in algorithmic search to compete with Google head-on, and ceding the social market to Facebook, LinkedIn, and others..
Five years later, it’s Google in the role of a large company trying to use its size as an advantage against a more nimble competitor. If Google’s 20,000+ employees can work together effectively and are sufficiently motivated, they’ll be a huge asset in the “battle for social.” Tying bonuses across the company to success gets everybody to focus on the company’s priority. From a strategy perspective, a great move by Google.
Which doesn’t mean it will work. Google’s entire company is built around the cult of the algorithm, so “social” is antithetical to their successes so far. On Hacker News, Scott Burson did a great job of explaining the dynamics — so parallel to the ones at Microsoft in 2006. And as Mathew points out, it’s also a sign of how concerned Google is: they’re acting like they see their core business at risk.
With their algorithmic search under assault by Microsoft (check out the last questions in Mike Swift’s interview with Matt Cutts) and their pattern of failure in social, will Google be able to evolve quickly enough? And how destabilizing will the process be? Larry’s moves after taking over as CEO are highlighting and raising the stakes.
Sounds like an opportunity to me 🙂
jon | 09-Apr-11 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
Another example of Google falling short:
Ask.com and answers.com do noticeably better — the answer’s a little old but very clear. (If you look closely on the Google results above, this answer is buried in the text of #3.) Yay Q&A sites!
Here’s the initial experience on Quora:
Apparently nobody’s asked or answered it yet. So I’ll give it a try …
Update, 3:45 p.m.: That didn’t take long.
That’s how it should work 🙂
jon | 20-Jun-11 at 12:27 pm | Permalink
Here’s an interesting response by Google’s Matt Cutts to Duck Duck Go’s Escape your search engine bubble. He certainly comes across as missing the point — or trying to change the subject. Over the last few months I’ve had a chance to talk with a lot of people about the search market, and they all think that Google’s vulnerable …
Liminal states :: Anxious Masculinity Under Threat: Google+ and Diversity, part 6 | 02-Sep-11 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
[…] as long-time readers know, I’m fascinated with Quora. Prisms, Kool-Aid, and Opportunity has more — along with analysis of Google’s vulnerability in their core search […]