Honestly, I never understood the Developer Story, probably because there's no indication that anybody ever looks at them other than the users putting theirs together. It's also an odd layout that doesn't take into account an absence of work on Free Software projects or different lengths of time, but these are tinier quibbles.
Jobs, though, while I have issues with Stack Overflow Jobs--only remembering the most recent cover letter and not requiring a consistent application experience, for examples---the postings have still been significantly higher quality than any other job board that I've seen. And the recruiters requesting my application have been the only recruiters to treat me like more than a search result.
So, the idea that the company would rather "leverage our unique position to solve real, meaningful problems for our users and customers" to corporate branding than helping developers rings false. Likewise, if ditching large features without soliciting opinions is the new way forward, maybe "building communities" isn't actually a core strength.?
I mean, it's the parent company's company, and clearly they like using vocabulary like "leverage" and "core strength" more than they like the return on investment of the Jobs service. But this still seems like the wrong way around things, when a plain-talking "this doesn't bring in enough money to warrant the developer hours involved" would have been less jarring to the community.
