Quora vs Slant.co

When you tag your blog post, it will show up in feeds of people following that topic.

Quora has a built-in audience interested in learning new things.

When upvoting existing answers, you can associate the pros and cons which influenced your choice of chosen answer(s).

Unlike a number of other Q&A sites where the person asking the question picks the winning answer, Slant accepts that they're asking because they don't know the answer, so they allow everyone in the community to pitch in by upvoting the best answer.

Most Q&A sites give each user the chance to give an answer (sometimes multiple answers). A lot of the content of each user's answers will overlap, resulting in duplication of information (thus more to read), or information being lost in noise (e.g. if someone sees existing answers and adds a missing point without copying existing information, their point will likely languish at the bottom of the list of answers as it did not answer the majority of the question).

Slant approaches this differently; rather than focusing on the users, it focuses on the points; Pros and Cons. Any user may amend the information in a pro/con, may vote based on how much that pro/con influenced their decision, and may add their own pros and cons if certain points are missing from the canon.

An enumeration of recommendations is easily viewed as a list, making it a good starting point for researching available options. This is the opposite of other sites in which multiple choices may be listed within a single answer, with the need for the user to read through paragraphs of information to pick out the key articles.

Slant.co's reason for being is to answer subjective questions. It was born with the knowledge that other sites existed to handle objective questions and answers, but they made no attempt to handle the intricacies of subjective answers. Slant.co is the only site focused on solving this specific area.

Subjective questions may have more than one answer. Slant allows people to vote for more than one answer as being correct, and to append the pros and cons which influenced their decision to their vote; thus giving a context of in which situations each answer may be considered correct.

You do not need to have an account to view existing content (questions or answers). People can see what they're getting into before deciding if they'd like to sign up for an account and contribute to the site.

Since recommendations and pros / cons can be updated by community members, content evolves to reflect modern standards.

The site is currently dedicated to questions within the technology area.
It is implied that as popularity grows it may open up to questions in other subject areas (ref: use of "Starting with..." on their Twitter profile).

It can be difficult to get user-ratings for Android apps that are not available on the Google Play Store.

So far other sites either indirectly use Google Play Store rankings or some technical writer tells you "which are the best XXX apps for YYY".

If you see a new question and choose to add an option already recommended in another question, you need to add all pros and cons from scratch.

I can quickly know the advantages and disadvantages of every tool/app/software/game etc and decide which one fits me best.

Slant isn't financially tied to any products listed on it. All the categories (organized into 'questions'), products (organized as 'options'), and pros/cons are added, and edited by real users - there is no way for a company to pay to have a favorable review (and if they try to do it themselves, the community can report (flag) or edit any false claims).

Each subjective statement needs to be backed up with objective information. An opinion has to be backed up with facts. An evidence for a claim on Slant can be provided with examples, sources, and facts.