Internet giants like Google, Ebay and Yahoo have thrived ever in china, but gradually exited finally. These internet giant are not trivial, in fact they are number one in the industry of the whole world. They failed in the Chinese market because of culture not policy. In Chinese market, money may breakthrough in a short time, but not familiar with culture will fail in the end.
The persons living aboard have taken the advantages, since they know about English and have much higher income; of course, they are better qualified. It looks that most of them are Ph.D. But it is notified that only these average persons, such as these cannot speak English, found sense of belonging to the community and found chances in the community, did the community realize actual development, since qualified persons, or the elite, are minority comparatively after all. For example, it is a big problem of the tedious registration process as well as the process of money transferring. It's better to design a detailed introduction to explain these problems and give different resolutions by different languages in full position.
Time is another problem. If one cannot grab the market share as fast as possible, it is often be caught up by followers. In the past decades, these kind of examples have been seen many times. There is no impassable obstacles of technology as well as investment for these kinds of websites or communities based on this idea to be realized, which is to say that it is not non-copyable.
It is possible that this kind of Chinese websites based on the same idea appears. Thus, it is better to digest the challenges actively rather than to change passively, which is not impossible.
Actually, it may be regarded as upgrade of industry of this digestion to the challenges. It cannot be considered as affecting the position and income; on the contrary, it would keep the rank in long term in this time of competition. The advantage, when it is established really, is difficult to be threatened since it rooted in local culture.
The cooperation model that these internet giants invest local companies and take shares of them cannot be excluded; actually, those Chinese internet companies, such as Baidu and Alibaba, are all this kind of cooperation model.
The persons aiming to make big money swarm into when they are chances to make big money, and quit quickly when they find there is no chance to make big money. I think the most valuable users are the persons who are interested in the community and have the same idea with the community. I think only these persons can insist in the future.
To build reward mechanism to reward persons who recommend new comers into the community, so to spread the information of the community.
It may become fragmentization of cn. plate in the future, which is the same phenomenon in other countries.
To improve the viability of the community. The topic will continue in long term when there are more and more persons with common language. Different users have different topics, and if there is trans-topic, some of which have common features, some of which have not, the users participate in these trans-topics without common features would feel tired, since to speak on the topics unfamiliar would be heavy burden rather than interest. On the contrary, users with common language will attracted mutually, and the community will grow by itself. This is a better strategy for future development.
Suggestions on technical level:
The first suggestion is to add one more column which allowing the author to sort his or her essays by his or her own understanding; however, the publishing time might not be changed. Actually, this gives full respects the author's wisdom and dignity. On the contrary, sorting by time looks rigid and stiff, not conforming to the idea of human-centered.
Secondly, as referred by the model of BBS, the topic should be expanded easily other than only be attached to the author's topic, by which the stickiness to the users would be built. There are two features of the community, interaction and mutuality, with which the participation process of users would become more comfortable since they fell they are respected. This point would increase better experience of the users without affecting author's income.
Thirdly, there is must be analysis using survey big data; however, it felt that these evolutionary factors may be these classified factors, and some of these factors may become more important, or some of them appears their importance gradually.
Fourthly, it is suggested to build reward mechanism to encourage the suggesters whose suggestions are adopted now or latter, and the mechanism should cover different levels and aspects, such as technology, experience, designing, column, etc. The reward mechanism, whatever different framework, is to increase the degree of participation, experience and stickiness of the users.
These above suggestions just my own thinking, some of which may be wrong, even opposite completely. The author welcome criticisms.
1、原来谷歌、易趣、雅虎等等互联网巨头在中国市场一时兴盛无比，但逐渐黯然退出，这些巨头并非无足轻重，都是当时世界本行业的第一，仍然不能避免在中国市场开发的失败，水土不服根源在文化，并非政策。可以短期以金钱撕开突破口，但对文化不了解，可能容易止步。
2.社区内国外环境中的人占优势更大，因为懂英语，帖子收入会高，当然素质也是高，好像最低的也是博士，但社区要实现真正发展，精英毕竟极少数，如何让普通人，不懂英语的人，就能好好发展，找到归属感。例如繁琐的注册和货币转出就是一个问题，有没有一个详细的说明，对其中难点提出不同解决方案，分不同国家语言的，在醒目位置。
3.时间是另一个问题，不能快速利用先发优势占领市场，往往导致跟风者追上甚至赶超，这样的例子不少。基于这个理念的网站技术上并非不能实现，投资也不会成问题，不存在不可复制性。
4.未来不排除有中国本土类似概念网站出现，因为与其被动改变，不如主动消化，而消化并非不可能。
5.其实这种智慧型的消化可以看做是一次产业升级，并非影响地位和收入，反而可能在此轮中保持长期不掉队，因为地位一旦真正建立，根植于本地文化，撼动也不容易。
6.也不排除巨头采用投资入股本土公司的合作模式，其实百度阿里等等好多都是。
7.单纯为能赚大钱而来的人会出现钱多则活，钱少则死的局面，需要为理念和喜欢而来社区的人才有长期坚持的动力，觉得这才是最有价值的用户群体。
8.建立奖励机制，对于推荐人进来社区的有奖励政策，如此才实现广泛传播。
9.未来cn板块可能会出现板块细化现象，而其他国家也一样。
10.建立社区自生长机制，不用群体有不同话题，共同语言的人多了，这个话题才有持续性，如果跨话题，有的具有共性，有的则未必，会出现迫于面子而做事，会很累，成为负担而不喜欢，而且没法提起兴趣深度参与讨论，而有了共同一个圈儿的人，则自动吸引这个圈儿的来参与，社区会自我生长，如此是一个战略性的发展。
技术层面建议：
1.建议多一项栏目，自己可对自己文章进行排序，当然每篇帖子的时间不会变。这其实是对作者智慧和人格的尊重，而时间轴则略显生硬和冷漠，与以人为本的理念不符。
2.借鉴吸收论坛帖子模式，使得话题更易展开，而非仅仅附属于帖主主题。由此建立使用粘性。因为同样尊重了跟帖者，社区本质有两点，一是互动，二是交互，让这个参与过程变得舒服，可能增加了参与体验，而不影响帖主收入。
3.使用调查的大数据分析肯定有，觉得可能进化的就是分类了，或许有的元素更重要，或者逐渐显示出了重要性。
4.同样建议对提出建议者，如果觉得有效，或采纳或以后采纳的采取不同奖励机制，建议包括技术，体验度，美工，栏目，等不同层面。因为所有的奖励机制无非指向一点，那就是参与度、体验度和粘性。
只是自己想法，未必对，甚至可能完全相反，随便批评。