Over the weekend, Mocavo announced their new Genealogy Karma site that is basically an SE-like Q&A site.

What does this mean for us?

Are they a worthy competitor? Does is legitimize the need for a site like this? Can we piggy-back their announcement to say, "Hey, we're better?" Or does this make our outlook a little more bleak?

  • 1
    I thought it was intended as a successor to RAOGK rather than a Q&A site. – user104 May 6 '13 at 14:18
  • Well, yes, both. It's a RAOGK successor implemented via a Q&A site. It's very SE-like. Have you seen it? – user47 May 6 '13 at 14:20
  • 1
    Yes, I've seen it. It's focused on questions about specific ancestors, which is only part of our scope. But it's yet another genealogy Q&A site in an already crowded field... I don't think it makes our outlook more bleak -- we already have plenty of competition, hence my question: meta.genealogy.stackexchange.com/q/1667/104 – user104 May 6 '13 at 14:29
  • I won't be using it -- you can only ask queries categorised by US state. – user104 May 6 '13 at 14:31
  • @ColeValleyGirl Interesting. I didn't notice it was limited to the US. – user47 May 6 '13 at 14:31
  • I was actually planning to ask for a lookup on an FHL film of a Welsh set of Bishops Transcripts, but there's no way to do it. – user104 May 6 '13 at 14:32

As we well know, a key determinant will be whether the high-profile opinion-makers join and contribute to Karma.

Given that Randy Seaver wrote a very positive blog AND was one of the first to answer a question, I think there are grounds to be concerned whether SE can compete.

No doubt some people with concerns about the height of the quality bar here will view their question types with interest.

If (when) they choose to acknowledge that there is a world outside the 50 states, Karma could be a very interesting experiment.


a question we should ask ourselves is 'would we allow their questions on our site'? Ie are they aiming at same target Q&A? If answer is yes, then we should ask what makes either site better. Eg SE is very good at turning up in search engines, etc. If answer is 'no', then I'd argue we should look at why. My gut (only read a few of their questions) is most of the questions would not meet our quality standards. For example, they allow 'looking for' questions and are more 'chatty' which I got the impression would not be allowed on this site.

You must log in to answer this question.