Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 33 of 33
yes. Essentially, the StackExchange people have told us that we can migrate, and they'll contact us at some point about the details of how this will work. We've been told that there is some scope for negotiating with existing StackExchange sites about the actual terms of the migration, but (to my knowledge) this hasn't actually happened at all yet. The StackExchange people like us --- Anton has talked, in person and via email, with a number of people in the company, including Joel Spolsky, right at the top, and we generally get the impression they want to treat us right. On the other hand, it's been a slightly frustrating process not hearing much from them about the transition to 2.0. We have a set of 3 incontrovertible requirements for switching, all of which go against the rules for new StackExchange 2.0 sites.
(re: 2, all of the StackExchange 2.0 sites will have public data dumps equivalent to what we already provide here. At present, only Anton has access to the unsanitized dumps, and the main purpose of these is so that we can in principle jump ship to an alternative software base.)
So --- we're waiting and seeing, for now!
Ads are a good point. Personally, I wouldn't make this a show stopper, but I think it's unlikely to be a problem. If Fog Creek want some revenue from us (as they should!), and suggest ads, we can quite seriously just offer to double what they expect to earn from ads.
One interesting long term possibility is an extension of Stack Overflow Careers to MathOverflow. Now, there are lots of reasons why this might be inappropriate --- in particular, no one is about to seriously propose changing the way that academic hiring works --- but there may well be more overlap between our user base and the people that certain companies are looking to hire than you might at first think. Stack Overflow Careers actually seems to do a pretty good job at its niche --- really good programming companies hiring really good programmers. If Fog Creek were interested in trying to monetize MathOverflow by creating a parallel, unobtrusive site for mathematicians to post CVs and companies to post mathematician-wanted ads, then I wouldn't object at all, and good luck to them! :-)
In the probability section?
(Well, someone had to say it)
:-). Perhaps we should create a probability section...
@Jacques: By "us", do you mean you and your "other you" or you and your colleagues? ;)
Wow, those people are jerks.
I second Andy's sentiment.
And Andrea's as well.
@Kyle: I don't understand why we couldn't just pay for SE2.0 like we would have paid for SE1.0...
@Everyone: I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. It's fine to have a discussion about what SO Inc's position should be, but it's a waste of time to get up in arms about terms of migration that don't even exist yet. Most of us at MO like SO and I'm pretty sure that SO Inc likes us, even though the purpose of SE has shifted since September. When migration is actually on the table, we'll see if we can make everybody happy. Until then, we're just speculating. For example, I'm pretty sure SE 2.0 site will have administrators. My email exchanges with Robert Cartaino have led me to believe that it's quite likely that MO will be able to migrate essentially unchanged. I'm as curious about what will happen as anybody else, but until SO Inc actually starts thinking about migrating SE 1.0 sites, the conversation has gone about as far as it productively can.
@Kyle: I hope Noah's answer and comment have clarified our position. I'm quite happy with SO, and I realize that they are interested in communities doing well. However, there's simply no guarantee that their interests won't conflict with ours. The point isn't that I really want to be a moderator on MO, it's that if there is ever a real conflict between SO and MO, somebody in the MO community has to have the power to completely move the site onto another platform. Maintaining ownership of the domain and access to full data dumps is necessary for that.
I certainly hope there won't ever be such a problem, but the whole point of negotiating a contract is that your relationship may change. If your friend promises to pay for all repairs to your house so long as you hand over the deed, it may sound like a great deal. After all, who cares whose name is on the paper? You keep living in your house, but somebody else pays for all the repairs. However, the name on the paper may become very important if your friend's interests ever start to diverge from yours. With any luck, you'll be friends forever, but you'd be a fool to treat that assumption as a certainty.
I apologize for my earlier comments. It was not my intention to hurt MO's reputation by calling GS names (that may or may not be applicable...).
To the extent that I have any vote (which is to say: not at all), I strongly support adding "no ads" to the list of nonnegotiable demands. MO should be an academic site, supported by grants. (Just like the NSF really should step in and provide full support for arXiv, which I think is the single most important research tool in mathematics and physics in the world. Fortunately, their current funding model is "ask large academic libraries to support us", now that "ask Cornell to support us" is failing, and university libraries tend to be fairly against monetization.)
Not disagreeing with theojf, but in the interests of accuracy, I would rank MathSciNet alongside arXiv (in fact, somewhat higher) in the list of most important research tools. And they should be compared for funding models purposes. Of course, just like everyone else, I would hate to see arXiv going the subscription-only route, but who knows what lies ahead? (I wasn't aware that Cornell is dumping arXiv, by the way.)
For the record, Cornell is not dumping arXiv, they're simply not willing to continue funding it 100%. I blogged about it here
Would "buying ads" not be frowned upon by grant-giving organisations? Even if in effect this is what is being done, it's perhaps prudent that it not be billed as such.