Live data from Hacker News

Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

goofygrin.wordpress.com

201–210 of 213 posts

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#201
post #170
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take it as encouraging that I've reached the level of expertise where my questions are more quickly answered on SO--I will grant that "where do I find an Ubuntu driver for my video card" will almost certainly be answered more quickly on #ubuntu than on Serverfault or Superuser.

"I'll take it as encouraging that I've reached the level of expertise where my questions are more quickly answered on SO" This attitude of yours says more about your lack of experience with and appreciation of IRC than it does about its relative merits in respect to SO.

That's not an attitude. That's an appropriate response to assertions you made about the obscurity of questions and unpopularity of platforms that will receive no response on IRC. I realize it was not a humble response, but it was not an attitude.

As to inexperience, I'll admit I've only been on Efnet's #help since 1997-ish and Freenode since around 2005, but that's still much longer than I've been on SO.

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#202
post #84

To me, the #1 problem with Stack Overflow is the number of plain bad answers that are given and often accepted. CSS question? Here’s someone’s un-researched and invalid first guess, that doen’t work in practice. +10 karma and accepted. Hard question? Here’s some loser’s gut feeling of “can’t be done” in exchange for +2 karma, and then a knowledgeable follow-up a day later from someone who has actually been there, don…

care to explain how he was rude and his tone off-putting? and i hope my question isn't rude ;)

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#203
post #117
post #61

Let me add some perspective as a relatively highly ranked user (cletus) on SO. I've seen this kind of post before and frankly it's annoying. The typical template is "I tried to answer 2 questions and didn't get 1000 points so it sucks" or some variation revolving around faster answerers or whatever. Rather than being a problem, SO is a superb solution for the person asking the question because they do get fast answer…

The situation you're describing is probably great for the askers of questions, but it's certainly not good for those of us wanting to contribute answers . edit: That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I don't think that "StackOverflow sucks," but it does means that it sucks for new users trying to become useful contributors.

If there are already enough people who are contributing, what is the problem then? Why do you want to contribute to something if it not useless?

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#204
post #61

Let me add some perspective as a relatively highly ranked user (cletus) on SO. I've seen this kind of post before and frankly it's annoying. The typical template is "I tried to answer 2 questions and didn't get 1000 points so it sucks" or some variation revolving around faster answerers or whatever. Rather than being a problem, SO is a superb solution for the person asking the question because they do get fast answer…

* [On forums] You'll often get no replies or useless replies (eg a bunch of people who don't understand the problem telling you that you shouldn't be doing that or asking you why) *

Actually, I have made similar experience also on SO when a question becomes a bit more special. I hate it to justify why I want to do it this way. But I was told that it's just the way it is on SO.

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#206
post #16

"So if you’re knowledgeable enough to provide a counterpoint to someone else’s poor answer, you have to post it as a new answer… and then you get down voted (lose rep!) for adding a new answer versus just commenting on the original, flawed answer." Never happened to me. Sometimes I even noticed that the author had deleted the original wrong answer and left a positive comment on mine.

Yep, also if you just have 1 reputation getting downvoted doesn't cost you anything, you stay at 1. So it doesn't hurt in the least even if this did occur, which I haven't seen myself, either. I often see that SO users will be helpful to new users who seem to be trying to be helpful.

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#207
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think it addresses the post. It's certainly true that Stack Overflow is the best place to get answers to programming questions and I won't dispute that. Here, though, is what I think the problem is. I think it mirrors the OP's problem. Stack Overflow became and is the best place to get answers to programming problems because of the community it has been able to build. Ther…

I have the same feeling about HN. I've been regularly visiting HN for a year now, commenting when I have something insightful and voting articles and comments up if they're exceptional. Yet I still don't have enough karma to downvote. The feeling I get is- I'm a long-time member of the community, what do I need to do to be trusted with a simple downvote? This isn't that bad since I can still be part of any discussion…

StackOverflow and Hacker News both seem to actively discourage casual participation. I am the sort of person who doesn't like to speak unless I have something new to add, so I don't post comments or answer questions often.

However, I'm quite happy to use my time and energy to tend the garden and pull weeds, and plant something new when I happen to have a really great seed. HN and SO both tell me they don't want me there -- fine, their sites, their rules. But I do feel this encourages a high noise to signal ratio, eventually clogging the site and making it less useful.

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#208
I've never liked karma systems.

On the surface it seems to make sense: People who are helpful/insightful get lots of karma. In practice, it fails on two fronts:

First, karma systems in and of themselves work based on popularity, under the mistaken idea that popularity = correctness/insightfulness/suitability. Quite often, the most insightful or thought provoking ideas are unpopular (or speaking the truth is unpopular). What you get is a system that automatically filters out the ideas that the majority are unconfortable with, and so you end up with an echo chamber which doesn't admit new ideas.

Second, the policies formed around the karma system grow biased AGAINST new users over time, which leads to community stagnation:

The initial couple of years are great. The early adopters are all eager to participate in meaningful ways, and build a thriving, vibrant community.

Then the gamers join in. They learn how to game the system to gain points. They do this just to show that they can. Closely related, the karma whores move in. Their sole goal is to gain points for self-worth. The community is meaningless; points are everything.

As the gamer's techniques become more widly known, the spammers move in, automating the techniques to promote their spam, and the cat-and-mouse game begins, usually at the expense of making things more difficult for the users. These measures are almost always done with consideration of the already established user base, using them to determine what a "normal, real" user is like.

Once you hit this point, it starts to become prohibitively expensive for a new user to join in, thanks to the biased notion of a "normal user". Stack Overflow is a prime example of this, where you have to jump through all sorts of crazy hoops just to be able to even comment or gasp edit your own question because upon re-reading, you decide it's not as clear as it could be.

And so you complain. But people don't like complainers, so they all jump on you and say "It's not so bad! I went through the red tape and so should you!" and "If you don't like the red tape, there's no place for you here!"

There's a word for this: Bureaucracy.

As a service provider, you should be doing everything in your power to make things MORE accessible to new users, not LESS accessible. You should be ENCOURAGING participation, not throwing hurdles in their way. New users are fickle. Their first experience on your site will largely shape their perception of it forever. Start them off with a bad experience and they'll refuse to participate. Rampant bureaucracy is a sign of severe failure in the system.

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#209
post #53
post #8

"Rep grinds" (see how MMO-speak has influenced us?) on non-gaming web sites may be becoming the norm. You grind out some rep, and get privileges based on that rep. One can argue that this serves as an effective barrier to keep out would-be posters of bad content and discussion, but as we can see it also screws with "legit" posters. Determined individuals will figure out how to work the game to their advantage, both f…

What game and what advantage? It's a Q/A site. The only way you are going to game the system is if you ask clearly delineated questions and provide thoughtful and clear answers.

A few techniques:

Form a cabal of vote sharers, who always vote for each other's posts. Post a bunch of semi-plausible content once a day and you'll have tons of karma in no time.

Post quick responses that have little insight. You'll always get votes for being first.

Post LOTS of trivial questions. More people will upvote than will downvote on the whole.

Re: Why Stack Overflow Sucks and Participating There is Impossible

#210
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What game and what advantage? It's a Q/A site. The only way you are going to game the system is if you ask clearly delineated questions and provide thoughtful and clear answers.

A few techniques: Form a cabal of vote sharers, who always vote for each other's posts. Post a bunch of semi-plausible content once a day and you'll have tons of karma in no time. Post quick responses that have little insight. You'll always get votes for being first. Post LOTS of trivial questions. More people will upvote than will downvote on the whole.

All the things you mentioned requires a lot of effort. In fact it's more effort than just actually providing one or two good answers and questions a day. Also, I have never seen any of the popular answers get answers that are not really close to the mark. Even the unpopular ones always get good answers that float to the top. Organizing a cabal of voters and then monitoring new questions within your area of expertise just so you can post semi-plausible answers to move up the ranks is borderline psychotic and I have yet to encounter these people on SO.
Post reply on HN