Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by kpanghmc on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:33PM (#2224444)

One of the big things that makes Experts Exchange unique is a patented system that requires askers to select their best answer. Most Q&A sites (StackExchange included) let the community vote for the best answer, when really the person whose opinion matters most is the one who asked the question.

StackOverflow allows for both community voting AND for the original asker to indicate which answer was the best answer. I suppose the only thing it doesn't do is require the asker to select a best answer like EE does apparently.

Also, how in the world did they get this process patented?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by MicahWedemeyer on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:46PM (#2224492)

I somehow manage to lose more faith in the patent system every day. I thought it was at zero, but somehow it's lower.

Perhaps I should patent my faith system that allows for negative numbers. Seems reasonable...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by mkr-hn on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @09:07PM (#2224572)

I store faiths in ints so they roll over to positive and I feel better for a while.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by mkramlich on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:24PM (#2224805)

I have a patent on that. Pay up.

(had to get that out of my system. feel better now.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by mkr-hn on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:26PM (#2224814)

Stored my bank balance in an int too. You'll have to wait for it to roll over.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by mkramlich on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:23PM (#2224802)

how's this for a meta-ironic comment: when I read your first 2 sentences, I immediately thought of a joke that I was going to make along the lines of, "sorry I have a patent on systems allowing you to submit a negative amount of faith in something, pay up or shutup!"

Then I read your last 2 sentences. Too weird! Also goes to show, again, what a joke the patent system is. Multiple people can "independently" come up with the same "innovation", given reasonably similar skills and context.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by eru on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @10:44PM (#2224849)

That's what the `non-obvious' restriction should be good for.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by Confusion on Thursday February 17, 2011 @01:05AM (#2229983)

You shouldn't loose faith because of yet another silly example of what can be patented. The main problem is that it can be defended in court to the extent where most people can't take on a wealthy patentholder, no matter how ridiculous the patent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by ROFISH on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:57PM (#2224545)

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6064978

IANAL, but it appears that simply having a "question and answer" site doesn't apply to this patent. If you read the patent, it's mostly related to the idea of asking a question costs points and giving the best answer, as chosen by the asker, receives points.

Any variation on this scheme, such as a general moderator or the public via voting choses the best answer, or not having the asker assign points to a question to be received (avoid the economy, still have asker chose best answer) can avoid this patent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by law on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @09:32PM (#2224645)

Merely removing one claim would be sufficient to avoid their patent. It gets tricky if you "change" a claim, because then you have to consider the substantiality of that change. For example, moving the "point escrow" of claim 9 would be sufficient to avoid their entire patent, but you'd likely be staring down the barrel of the dirtbag attorney they hire to drag you through the mud in an expensive federal court case, hoping you'll just opt for a licensing agreement. It is what it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by archangel_one on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @08:51PM (#2224511)

It seems like 90% of the EE questions I see, the asker has vanished before accepting one of the answers - in those cases this patented system is effectively worthless since I have no idea which answer is best. At least on SO I can still get an idea if some answers are better (or if some are flat-out wrong, as happens).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by EEvangelist on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @01:59PM (#2227721)

When the asker disappears (which happens even more at SO) a cleanup crew will come and either accept an answer (but give the experts chance to discuss which) or delete it. At SO it just sits there, with whatever votes and no accept. When the opposite happens, you need to do a bounty at SO which may or may not work (never worked for me). At EE the question is first marked abandoned, attracting experts who subscribe to that zone - if no reaction, a moderator will send out requests to know experts in the zone and re-zone if needed. Works well

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Expert Exchange gets narky after snub from Q/A site review by yesimahuman on Tuesday February 15, 2011 @09:23PM (#2224621)

> when really the person whose opinion matters most is the one who asked the question.

Additionally, I find this point to hardly be the case. I love that on SO you can look below the answer to see another one with ten times as many votes and I know that's the better answer.

[ Parent | on HN ]