Stack Overflow utterly destroyed the other answer sites for just this reason: they make choices based on what is best for the user, not Stack Overflow. Check the traffic of Expert Sexchange, or Quora, vs. the entire SO network. If all you care about is short term gains, you lose to the company that wants to build a trusted brand.
At least that's the way I think it should work out, and in this case I think it has. There is such a clear delineation between good and evil in this market, and such a clear leadership position held by the "good", that it's interesting that folks are wringing their hands worrying about whether SO gets enough impressions out of this. They don't need/want merely impressions. They want your trust and your participation. I know where I go when I have a question...how about you?
I started seeing this feature a few weeks ago, and I love it. They even bold exactly the segment of the answer you're interested in. Amazing stuff.
I basically treat it like any other link in Google that just happens to have the text I want formatted differently than other links. In most cases I end up clicking the link anyway to verify the context is correct.
Also Quora forces you to signup even to view all answers/comment. (or you have to do silly url hack, appending ?share=1). Secondly the quality of answers on Stackoverflow network is much better than Quora. Lastly, I have seen some answers deleted by Quora mods for their personal reasons.* There is no way such thing can happen on Stack Overflow.
* this [0] is the question I remember. Directi is an Indian company. And mods who work for Directi deleted the answers which showed Directi in badlight. It doesn't matter whether answers were correct or not, let the downvotes decide them, but this kinda of censorship is not cool.
Not to mention that SO's content is released under a Creative Commons license, and for exactly this reason. Google doesn't really even need their permission to do something like this.
Extremely ironic that you post this in response to Google search results, which have become a prime example of choosing what's best for Google over what's best for the user after first decimating the opposition.
And so far still pays off nicely for Google, even though the results are getting shittier and more biased year after year.
The only lesson here seems to be "destroy your opposition first, before you start focusing on ruthless exploitation". Let's just hold off on drawing conclusions about SO until another decade.
I agree. I was a Google cheerleader for years (and still hold some GOOG, though one of these days I'll do some research and find a new company to move it to). But, I have lost a lot of trust in them. I use DDG for search, Firefox for browser, though I still have a lot of data at Google. But, in this case I don't think Google's behavior is misaligned with user interests or with those of SO.
Who's the "user"? I sometimes find useful information on SO, but I would never think to ask a question there ("closed because ..."), much less play their "gamification" of Usenet. They're less terrible than the "?share=1" people, but that's not saying much.
Their traffic and user engagement says they have a lot of "users", and vastly more than their competition (despite the huge hype about Quora, they got absolutely wrecked by SO/SE).
I don't go in for the gamification stuff, but I like finding correct answers without the bullshit of forced logins, SEO trickery, ghosting of answers, etc. I login to SO/SE because I get value from it (I ask questions and logging in let's me get notifications when someone answers). I suspect the gamification is the least of what they got right. The core things they got right are that they respect their users, they make it easy/quick, they give you the best answer where you expect to find it (including in search engine results and without logging in), and they treat the content as thought it belongs to the community rather than the company. It's kinda like what reddit (and HN) got right. The upvotes are ancillary, but fun sometimes.
> So it appears this is happening with Stack Overflow knowing about it and approving it, after all — they implemented schema.org.
Not really. As far as I know, implementing schema.org means your data is structured, not that anyone can do whatever they want with it. The real reason Google can do it is because Stack Overflow user submitted content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Unfortunately Google is not complying with the license since it requires providing a link to it and indicating which changes were made[0].
There is a mechanism in schema.org to specify licenses[1]. I couldn't find it in SO answers' attributes, but Google shouldn't assume that means they can do whatever they want with the content! In fact, wouldn't that mean the content is under copyright (unless specified otherwise) and therefore not remixable/shareable? As far as I can tell, even if those are excerpts, Google's use does not fall under fair use.
Anyways, props to SO for choosing CC BY-SA for their user submitted content. I think it's fair (after all SO feeds from their users) and, even if detrimental to their interests in the short term, in the long term builds trust among their users.
Stack Overflow added metadata to their HTML to enable Google to use the answers in their response box. This is the primary (and probably sole) reason for this metadata, therefore it constitutes an implicit license grant to Google.
> CC BY-SA is not the license that Google is using.
Exactly, so their license is not compatible with SO's (which requires Share-Alike) and therefore they're violating SO's license until they explicitly comply with CC BY-SA in those excerpts.
What matters here is which license the source content is distributed under.
> Stack Overflow added metadata to their HTML to enable Google to use the answers in their response box. This is the primary (and probably sole) reason for this metadata
SO added metadata to enable anyone to use their data in any way (as long as they comply with the license).
I'm very grateful for having structured data. Even if schema.org is a Google (+ Microsoft + Yahoo + Yandex) initiative, the idea is to structure the content, not to give it for free.
> therefore it constitutes an implicit license grant to Google.
I don't think it works that way. I'm not sure if "implicit licensing" will hold in court (after all, there is a explicit license contradicting it), but even if it would, the only thing schema.org implies is that the data is structured.
I agree with your first paragraph, but I don't agree that google is violating CC BY-SA. They do provide a link back to the original source, very clearly shown in the picture in the article. This seems sufficient for attribution, though perhaps they should go further and actually cite the answerer's username.
You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license. Otherwise the text is unchanged.
> Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, _provide a link to the license_ [...]
There is no link to the license. There isn't even a mention of the license! For me this is the most important point, therefore Google is not complying with the license.
---
> You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license.
This is a minor point for me, but I still disagree.
Google's work is definitely a remix and the license is very explicit about it. We're not the ones meant to interpret what's the spirit of the license or when it's fine to violate its terms. I guess (IANAL) even non-remixed excerpts (i.e. removing content) should be marked as excerpts to fully comply.
Here's example of why it might not be just a nitpick: answers are sometimes conflicting, and their meaning might change radically when automated excerpts are amalgamated. Imagine a right answer turned wrong by the automated merge. This could damage SO's reputation, driving away visits which would otherwise come back to SO as a reliable source.
If I were to remix them by hand, I would definitely mark it as a derived work.
I suspect this actually increases exposure and traffic to SO. If you look at the quoted data it is definitely not enough to decide if that's the right answer. It's going to get you to click through as you really need context, like vote ups, compare/contrast with other answers, look at context of question, etc. I think it's a bright move on SO's part and they really do control what they share with Google.
It's basically a free ad for SO. Smart.
Also, it could be that Google is paying SO to do this. You never know.
> So it appears this is happening with Stack Overflow knowing about it and approving it, after all -- they implemented schema.org. But at the cost of pageviews?
Having a useful answer appear at the top of a Google search with an obviously link to your site can only help you. It builds your brand as an authority and provides the first link for people to click for problems. I think this is a clear win for StackOverflow.
Given the difference in size and userbase, if duckduckgo were to be the one playing catch up on new small features like this, they would really be doing it wrong ...
I'm not quite sure why I'm being downvoted here ? I'm not criticizing but pointing out the obvious.
Or do you think the smaller/newer players aren't supposed to be the ones bringing new ideas and executions but are meant to merely follow the giants from a distance and copy them ? In search or in other fields ... Because that's what downvoting what I said implies.
While it is a good point about maybe affecting page views, the use of schema.org markup is a tide that lifts all boats: great technology. While other embedded semantic markup schemes are also very useful, it makes sense (to me) to have schema.org be the standard that gets used.
The hypothesis behind the search engine is that correct answers will share some of the same tokens in common. For example a search for "mysql error 1045" brings up posts from stackoverflow, linuxquestions, ubuntuforums, and serverfault that all mention an incorrect password. The "best" answer is the one that instructs you on how to reset your password.
Other queries you can try are:
"linux check hard drive space"
"openssl aes"
"reset safari 8 on yosemite"
"how to remove spilled wine from macbook?"
I had concerns as well about whether this type of search engine "steals" content from other sites. I consulted with a few lawyers and their legal consensus was that this fell under fair use since I was a) Only showing a portion (specific posts) from each site and b) Transforming the posts in a novel way (i.e. re-ranking them). The transformative requirement is the #1 factor for fair use:
Readit News
At least that's the way I think it should work out, and in this case I think it has. There is such a clear delineation between good and evil in this market, and such a clear leadership position held by the "good", that it's interesting that folks are wringing their hands worrying about whether SO gets enough impressions out of this. They don't need/want merely impressions. They want your trust and your participation. I know where I go when I have a question...how about you?
I basically treat it like any other link in Google that just happens to have the text I want formatted differently than other links. In most cases I end up clicking the link anyway to verify the context is correct.
VERY FRICKIN' COOL.
To agree with you: occasionally, quora pops up. But I actively avoid them.
* this [0] is the question I remember. Directi is an Indian company. And mods who work for Directi deleted the answers which showed Directi in badlight. It doesn't matter whether answers were correct or not, let the downvotes decide them, but this kinda of censorship is not cool.
[0] - http://www.quora.com/Is-Directi-banned-from-IIT-placements
And so far still pays off nicely for Google, even though the results are getting shittier and more biased year after year.
The only lesson here seems to be "destroy your opposition first, before you start focusing on ruthless exploitation". Let's just hold off on drawing conclusions about SO until another decade.
I don't go in for the gamification stuff, but I like finding correct answers without the bullshit of forced logins, SEO trickery, ghosting of answers, etc. I login to SO/SE because I get value from it (I ask questions and logging in let's me get notifications when someone answers). I suspect the gamification is the least of what they got right. The core things they got right are that they respect their users, they make it easy/quick, they give you the best answer where you expect to find it (including in search engine results and without logging in), and they treat the content as thought it belongs to the community rather than the company. It's kinda like what reddit (and HN) got right. The upvotes are ancillary, but fun sometimes.
Not really. As far as I know, implementing schema.org means your data is structured, not that anyone can do whatever they want with it. The real reason Google can do it is because Stack Overflow user submitted content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Unfortunately Google is not complying with the license since it requires providing a link to it and indicating which changes were made[0].
There is a mechanism in schema.org to specify licenses[1]. I couldn't find it in SO answers' attributes, but Google shouldn't assume that means they can do whatever they want with the content! In fact, wouldn't that mean the content is under copyright (unless specified otherwise) and therefore not remixable/shareable? As far as I can tell, even if those are excerpts, Google's use does not fall under fair use.
Anyways, props to SO for choosing CC BY-SA for their user submitted content. I think it's fair (after all SO feeds from their users) and, even if detrimental to their interests in the short term, in the long term builds trust among their users.
[0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
[1] https://schema.org/license
Stack Overflow added metadata to their HTML to enable Google to use the answers in their response box. This is the primary (and probably sole) reason for this metadata, therefore it constitutes an implicit license grant to Google.
IANAL.
Exactly, so their license is not compatible with SO's (which requires Share-Alike) and therefore they're violating SO's license until they explicitly comply with CC BY-SA in those excerpts.
What matters here is which license the source content is distributed under.
> Stack Overflow added metadata to their HTML to enable Google to use the answers in their response box. This is the primary (and probably sole) reason for this metadata
SO added metadata to enable anyone to use their data in any way (as long as they comply with the license).
I'm very grateful for having structured data. Even if schema.org is a Google (+ Microsoft + Yahoo + Yandex) initiative, the idea is to structure the content, not to give it for free.
> therefore it constitutes an implicit license grant to Google.
I don't think it works that way. I'm not sure if "implicit licensing" will hold in court (after all, there is a explicit license contradicting it), but even if it would, the only thing schema.org implies is that the data is structured.
Here are schema.org terms and conditions: https://schema.org/docs/terms.html It never says you give them your content for free.
> IANAL.
IANAL either :)
You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license. Otherwise the text is unchanged.
> Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, _provide a link to the license_ [...]
There is no link to the license. There isn't even a mention of the license! For me this is the most important point, therefore Google is not complying with the license.
---
> You could argue that combining two answers counts as modification, but that seems more of a nit-pick than enforcing the spirit of the license.
This is a minor point for me, but I still disagree.
Google's work is definitely a remix and the license is very explicit about it. We're not the ones meant to interpret what's the spirit of the license or when it's fine to violate its terms. I guess (IANAL) even non-remixed excerpts (i.e. removing content) should be marked as excerpts to fully comply.
Here's example of why it might not be just a nitpick: answers are sometimes conflicting, and their meaning might change radically when automated excerpts are amalgamated. Imagine a right answer turned wrong by the automated merge. This could damage SO's reputation, driving away visits which would otherwise come back to SO as a reliable source.
If I were to remix them by hand, I would definitely mark it as a derived work.
It's basically a free ad for SO. Smart.
Also, it could be that Google is paying SO to do this. You never know.
Having a useful answer appear at the top of a Google search with an obviously link to your site can only help you. It builds your brand as an authority and provides the first link for people to click for problems. I think this is a clear win for StackOverflow.
Or do you think the smaller/newer players aren't supposed to be the ones bringing new ideas and executions but are meant to merely follow the giants from a distance and copy them ? In search or in other fields ... Because that's what downvoting what I said implies.
http://gotoanswer.stanford.edu
The hypothesis behind the search engine is that correct answers will share some of the same tokens in common. For example a search for "mysql error 1045" brings up posts from stackoverflow, linuxquestions, ubuntuforums, and serverfault that all mention an incorrect password. The "best" answer is the one that instructs you on how to reset your password.
Other queries you can try are:
"linux check hard drive space" "openssl aes" "reset safari 8 on yosemite" "how to remove spilled wine from macbook?"
I had concerns as well about whether this type of search engine "steals" content from other sites. I consulted with a few lawyers and their legal consensus was that this fell under fair use since I was a) Only showing a portion (specific posts) from each site and b) Transforming the posts in a novel way (i.e. re-ranking them). The transformative requirement is the #1 factor for fair use:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#...