Live data from Hacker News

Tired of Stack Overflow

arp242.net

241–250 of 517 posts

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#241

Every year I see a post complaining about how unfriendly Stack Overflow is, how their pet question got downvoted so unfairly, and how Stack Overflow is dying. Everyone agrees: Stack Overflow is too mean and is dying. But time and again when I search for a question online if there's an SO version of it it has the best answer. And when I can't find an answer anywhere and I ask on SO I usually get a good answer quickly.…

> . Everyone agrees: Stack Overflow is too mean and is dying.

But even Stack Overflow agrees, which is why they keep having projects to improve the site for new users.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#242
post #16

I really think it's better to just have an up vote arrow and no down vote option, for questions at least. The only reason on a site like that to really vote something down should be if something is off topic or against the rules, in which case you have a report button. If a question just straight up doesn't interest you or you don't want to answer it, then ignoring it rather than voting it down seems like the reasona…

I'd love a filter to reduce the number of questions with 0 upvotes in the 'interesting' feed. Most stuff in that feed is obviously not interesting (0 upvotes, plenty of views, no answers, older than 30 minutes, reputation Better filtering options would be helpful. I'd love to review unanswered recent questions by reputable users. I don't care about seeing questions with 0 upvotes, older than 30 minutes and more than 20 views. There is currently no good way to list these. You either end up with questions from years ago that had lots of upvotes but no answer or an endless list of low quality crap that was recently modified or asked.

I've pretty much disengaged from even looking at the Stackoverflow feed of new questions because the signal to noise ratio just went out of the window in recent years. There's a lot of signal dropping out of these feeds because of all the freshly signed up users wasting people's time.

Stackoverflow has plenty of ways to earn reputation but no good ways to filter on that. IMHO fixing that is the answer. The site needs a more efficient way to get rid of the obviously crappy questions (and the people asking them) because the volume of both is just killing engagement currently.

For answers, I think the existing up/downvote mechanism works fine though the site could maybe do with a bit less passive aggressive style moderation/commenting. The way answer sorting works, the good stuff ends up on top anyway. So there's less of a need to intimidate people that are trying to be helpful but failing for whatever reason because their impact is less high. I tend to bias to being grateful somebody took the time to read and answer my questions even if it ultimately is not that helpful.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point I just ask a question, get an answer, and if I don't like the commentary, I just delete it. I post there under my real name, which means I either have to address or accept dumb/nit-picking criticism, which is a no-win situation. If the person who answers actually needs the points, I'll give that some consideration, but it seems like a lot of the time the solution is offered in the comments anyway. I don…

People deleting questions after they have been answered is one of the reasons I stopped contributing. It's so energy draining to take the time and explain something to somebody and do it in a way that others with the same problem can understand & apply it as well only for them to delete the question for some reason.

I prefer not to delete, especially to an official answer, but it’s hard to let the obnoxious comments stand at the same time.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#244
post #16

I really think it's better to just have an up vote arrow and no down vote option, for questions at least. The only reason on a site like that to really vote something down should be if something is off topic or against the rules, in which case you have a report button. If a question just straight up doesn't interest you or you don't want to answer it, then ignoring it rather than voting it down seems like the reasona…

I think the voting system is fine. But why close down a question!! What's the harm in answering more questions even if not quite apropos?

I feel people try to categorize too much for no good reasons. Oh this question shouldn't be asked here? As if it's the 1980s and people browse the web using categories.

I get it for people answering. They follow a tag and answer questions and ideally they don't want to see questions about things they can't answer. So seeing unrelated questions can be seen as spam from that angle. But there has to be a better way.

That might be why I find Quora has more potential. You can just tag whatever. Wrong tag. Just tag it with an appropriate tag done. Maybe we don't need to segregate Q/A sites. That said, I don't like Quoras layout and UXquite as much for code.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When done correctly, this is considerate because it reduces the amount of time users spend searching for an answer. But it isn't done correctly. It's done rather arbitrarily, because who could have predicted that accurate rating of questions is hard and that in the end what matters is having a quality knowledge base on various subjects not only the ones some specific people think are useful. I'd also not ignore tha…

Do you believe that downvoters have no empathy or that they have empathy, they are just bad at downvoting well because the problem is hard? Your comments seem to contradict on this point.

Neither answer to your question is not entirely what I mean. Yes, the problem is hard, but the lack of understanding of the askers' side is a problem of people arguing against any changes to the system.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marked as answered is a fundamentally horrible idea and that feature should be removed. The problem is that the person asking the question isn't capable of determining a correct answer. Far, far to often they pick something that appears to solve their problem but actually is a terrible idea.

I think they should support both the "accepted" and "best" answer use cases. Have separate indicators in the UI for them. In the common case, the accepted and best answers will probably be the same, so keep the classic green checkmark there. When the accepted and best answers don't match, have two checkmarks (or whatever) - one that explicitly says "user XXX accepted this answer" and the other that says "this is the…

They have this in the form of upvotes. If the community disagrees with the selected answer, they can use upvotes and downvotes to reflect their opinion. Then, a user who is reading the question can sort answers by vote count.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#247
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make downvotes require a comment. Let other users vote on the reasoning. If it's a BS reason like "Duplicate! Duplicate!" that's wrong, let others erase that vandalism from the site. One of the stupidest things on the internet is when someone comments that it's a duplicate question and then posts something that makes it obvious they read neither the question nor the supposed duplicate. Most downvotes are never explai…

>Make downvotes require a comment. I cited some meta SE threads about that idea in my other comment but I forgot to add this thread as well: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/why-isnt-pro... Forcing comments on downvotes looks reasonable but it doesn't work at the high-traffic scale of StackOverflow. [To downvoters, (1) are there any other discussion websites with comparable high traffic to StackOverflo…

Maybe "high traffic scale" is a problem?

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#248
post #237

I think you can argue the psychology and the merits of various ranking systems all day every day. I don’t think there is one correct answer and might work one moment on one population might not work for another population for even the same population at a later date. The OP might just be getting burned out on stack overflow -maybe time to take a break, scale back, or just do something new. I think stack overflow is a…

I suspect the author hit the Indian downvote brigades as well. The big issue I currently have with the Stack Overflow is that it seems like it has become some form of "scoring metric" for Indian programmers--presumably the consulting companies like Wipro. As such, if you don't immediately give a positive vote/response to even garbage answers, you get a downvote brigade burying the question. I suspect disallowing Indi…

Tarring a whole country with the same brush is bordering on racist.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#249

Every year I see a post complaining about how unfriendly Stack Overflow is, how their pet question got downvoted so unfairly, and how Stack Overflow is dying. Everyone agrees: Stack Overflow is too mean and is dying. But time and again when I search for a question online if there's an SO version of it it has the best answer. And when I can't find an answer anywhere and I ask on SO I usually get a good answer quickly.…

Agreed 100%. Wikipedia is similar, in that both SO and Wikipedia have clearly defined goals, and policies based on achieving those goals. But for as long as they've been around there have always been people who get worked up over those sites not being quite what they want them to be. And what they want want them to be is usually a place where anything goes, and/or a place where they can more effectively earn some form of imaginary internet points, or at least not have meanies downvote them or reject their contributions.

I'm sure both SO and Wikipedia have their own dysfunction even within the constraints of their stated policies, which I'm sure is a constant struggle to deal with. But that's inevitable, communities always have issues to deal with. Those are different issues than users wishing a site had different goals. I'm all in favor of sites like SO or Wikipedia (or Reddit, or HN) having all sorts of constraints on what types of content they want and how they operate. Maybe it's frustrating sometimes for people who are set on relying on one of those sites for everything (and therefore want them to be all things to all people), but overall I think those types of self-imposed constraints are exactly what makes them useful and interesting, and allows them to grow in ways that are unique to the mission of the site.

Re: Tired of Stack Overflow

#250
I think a big cause of SO's unpleasantness is the directive to eliminate duplicate questions. Judging whether two questions are duplicate has a lot of gray area, and most people seem too eager to hit the button. It's frustrating when someone marks your question as duplicate based on their own flawed understanding of what you asked.

What is the harm in having multiple similar questions on the site? As the passive reader, it's no big deal to look through two or three similar pages. A massive academic field, Information Retrieval, gives us many sophisticated tools to rank similar chunks of information by relevance.

As the number of duplicates increases, all possible ways of asking the question will be covered. When someone new comes to ask the same question, they'll see at least one duplicate in the real time results for "possible duplicates" as they type. So I don't think we need to worry about hundreds of duplicates.

Post reply on HN