Also, I am not sure if content volume is an exact criterion for rating a site. A quick look at any of these sites shows that most of the content is junk. So, what can one do with such a huge volume of junk - I cannot see how it can be useful.
Rather, a good assessment criterion would have been content volume versus quality content. This I believe is a more scientific indicator of how the different sites rate.
Again regarding your criterion:”.. is it compelling enough to come back”
needs to be qualified. Compelling in what sense - quality of answers (they all fail), ease of using the system (they all pass), trust worthiness of the answer-afterall, except for the philistine who has plenty of time and just asks for the sake of asking, most of us when we ask, do so as we are looking for an answer - they all fail except for Indiahowto which is again a bit limited in range of topics.
Plus, a quick look reveals to me atleast a few other good but non-fashionable that are in this field and provide much better service.
A small piece of advice, if you don’t mind: To be taken seriously, you need to write well. To write well, good research is invaluable.
Thank you,
Sudeepto

No updates since long time? Keep posting new articles,

-Sushil

I think google answers had a strong incentive scheme.It resulted in some really good quality responses. Alas according to Google there were too few users using ‘answers’ to continue the service. May be they felt it competed with search.
As of now the kind of information that I expect to get from an answer service can be obtained by doing a web search(more or less).

These new QnA websites must offer something more than offering simplistic answers so that users come back when they need help. They should tap the knowledge of experts in the field and provide them strong incentives to
provide quality answers (may be build a reputation system as a measure of expertise on a topic) then some quality answers would show up.

Also I doubt if generic QnA services will work. Each website must specialize in a specific area. The point is this..When a user needs expert advise on a particular topic he/she must be able to find the portal on the website more useful and compelling than a web search. Generic websites somehow fail to convey this message.

Thinking about closure of google answers may lead to better models of answers.

I think the model was different than the one we are discussing here. Also, I am always amazed when its assumed that Google shutting a service means it was not worthy. I think there were shortcomings with the service itself and Google killed the project because they did not succeed after trying for years.

We have just released an Indian Blogs Directory. We plan to develop the largest online Indian Bloggers Community. So please go ahead and include your blog into our directory. You can link to us or write about us on your blog. Not mandatory for submission though.

You can submit your blog here:
http://indiacounts.com/

Regards
India Counts

1. In short term, we can expect the ads to be the driving factor. They need to become more and more contextual (think gmail ads) which would bump up the click through.

2. In long term, I completely agree with vslog that more monetization need to stem from the huge amount of user generated data sitting with the Q&A company.

And a very good coverage of why such solutions are being considered at
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/114/features-why-is-this-man-smiling.html

You didn’t include FunAdvice India: http://www.funadvice.co.in/ which, incidentally, is a more accurately “Indian” website than Yahoo Answers (their domain should be yahoo.co.in instead).

Sure, we have about 500 members from India on the site, but the nice thing for FunAdvice users (like Yahoo Answers) is the replies & questions go into a global pool, which speeds replies and improves the experience for everybody.