Does upgrading a social site truly equate to remaining viable?
After reading this question in the meta section, I decided to ask if development is truly a benchmark or a curse to a social site such as Fluther.
As an example:
Answerbag over developed and evolved to a degree that a mass migration of users left- no longer feeling welcome there.
Wis.dm overdeveloped and fragmented so fast that the servers could not bear the load. The site then failed. The owners, after attempting to sell without success, folded the site.
Fluther has steadily grown with a large growth spurt in 2010. The growth created anxiety- the addition of “social” and “general” was met, according to the archives, with trepidation and concern. Now Fluther is in a state a suspended animation- and this seems to be of concern as well.
So I ask:
With the two prior examples of sites that continued to develop, where one lost it’s base and the other ceased to exist, is it such a bad thing that this site has slowed its development?
If Fluther had continued with its creative staff- would it have succumbed to potential overdevelopment?
Keep in mind that, as @Augustlan stated, essential development does continue here, Fluther is not completely abandoned. Is it truly a bad thing that there is not a team of developers seeking to perfect what may not need perfecting?
Please feel free to post any thoughts.