The significance of social Q&A sites is not how they compare against Wikipedia, it's for things that Wikipedia can't handle. You can't ask the following questions at Wikipedia and expect to get much:
- How do I get a stain out of my jeans? - How do I deal with a cheating husband? - What should I know when shopping for a digital camera? - Where's a good Chicago-style pizza joint in LA?
Social Q&A is about people helping others with advice and knowledge that isn't easy to find in an ordinary search. Another huge flaw with this review was that the reviewer was purely looking for answers to factual questions, while one of Social Q&A's main strengths is in answering subjective questions.
As someone who's very close to this space, I can tell you that this review was about as shallow as they get. Not only did the reviewer spend no time comparing and contrasting the actual Q&A mechanisms, but he gave random points for random features, a no-no when doing objective reviews. There should be a set list of criteria that each site is compared against.
He gave Yahoo Answers 3 points for features, with no real explanation beyond saying they have a "My QnA" page (which Answerbag does as well) and "users can choose and customize their own cartoon self-portraits". I can think of a lot of great features at Y!Answers, but I don't think I'd be handing out 3 points just for the avatars Yahoo has been using for years.
Worse, he doesn't explain how he gives points for answer quality. In the Answerbag section, he says the answer about Mormons was "more or less in line with the best answers to this question at other sites", but he only gave it 1 point out of 3. What gives? And for our answer on how to make a grilled cheese sandwich (which seemed pretty good to me), he only gives it a 2 out of 3 with no explanation of where the other point went. What gives?
Naturally, as the founder of Answerbag, I'm not claiming that I'm totally objective, but as someone with a background in journalism, I'd like to see a little effort and scientific process go into a review like this. Read a professional home audio review or a car comparison, and you'll see how a real comparison review should be written.
I'd love to write a real, scientific review, but I doubt people would see it as very objective.;)
Slashdot Mirror
The significance of social Q&A sites is not how they compare against Wikipedia, it's for things that Wikipedia can't handle. You can't ask the following questions at Wikipedia and expect to get much:
- How do I get a stain out of my jeans?
- How do I deal with a cheating husband?
- What should I know when shopping for a digital camera?
- Where's a good Chicago-style pizza joint in LA?
Social Q&A is about people helping others with advice and knowledge that isn't easy to find in an ordinary search. Another huge flaw with this review was that the reviewer was purely looking for answers to factual questions, while one of Social Q&A's main strengths is in answering subjective questions.
As someone who's very close to this space, I can tell you that this review was about as shallow as they get. Not only did the reviewer spend no time comparing and contrasting the actual Q&A mechanisms, but he gave random points for random features, a no-no when doing objective reviews. There should be a set list of criteria that each site is compared against. He gave Yahoo Answers 3 points for features, with no real explanation beyond saying they have a "My QnA" page (which Answerbag does as well) and "users can choose and customize their own cartoon self-portraits". I can think of a lot of great features at Y!Answers, but I don't think I'd be handing out 3 points just for the avatars Yahoo has been using for years. Worse, he doesn't explain how he gives points for answer quality. In the Answerbag section, he says the answer about Mormons was "more or less in line with the best answers to this question at other sites", but he only gave it 1 point out of 3. What gives? And for our answer on how to make a grilled cheese sandwich (which seemed pretty good to me), he only gives it a 2 out of 3 with no explanation of where the other point went. What gives? Naturally, as the founder of Answerbag, I'm not claiming that I'm totally objective, but as someone with a background in journalism, I'd like to see a little effort and scientific process go into a review like this. Read a professional home audio review or a car comparison, and you'll see how a real comparison review should be written. I'd love to write a real, scientific review, but I doubt people would see it as very objective. ;)
Yahoo Games Domain has it here:
http://gamesdomain.yahoo.com/feature/5214