321–330 of 352 posts
What I find off-putting about StackOverflow is their crowd-sourced moderation system (which I got access to at some point due to karma threshold). It’s based on pre-categorised moderation queues with flagged submissions that you can (have to) go through, and it’s designed in a way that you mostly choose from a set of pre-fabricated standard responses to “resolve” the issue. The eventual moderation decision is “democr…
1. ask a question isolating and narrowing down my issue as good as I can
2. marked as a duplicate providing a link with an issue, which is loosely related, but does not solve my problem
3. start explaining / defending in comments why question is not a dupe
4. stays marked as dupe
5. give up and feel disappointed for the time and effort investment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we need sort of an etiquette code to disclose when a piece of text is AI-generated. Like when we say "Full Disclosure" or "IANAL"
i can't help think of Data from star trek, longing to be more human like. At some point can the AI be allowed to post with the same equal rights as humans. Picard would fight for Data's rights to comment on hacker news articles.
I think a common misunderstanding about Stack Overflow is that it's a place to get your questions answered. It's not - that's only a secondary use case. The primary purpose of S.O. is to produce a searchable corpus of answers with few duplicates and pretty high-quality answers. They're optimizing for being the first google result for "how to do X in Y language." They're not optimizing for being the best place for an…
I hear this strawman all the time. The first thing you read when you go to stackoverflow.com is: > Find the best answer to your technical question, help others answer theirs And here's one of the first snippets on their about page: > Stack Overflow helps people find the answers they need, when they need them. We're best known for our public Q&A platform that over 100 million people visit every month to ask questions,…
Actually, ChatGPT is going to be really good for helping you with finding the tiny detail in a large body of documentation, as long as their docs were published prior to 2020
But the point :
> I've finally decided to cancel my SO account, to add it to my hosts block list, and to block SO results from Google using an extension.
This feels like the OP is just being spiteful. Love it or hate it, SO is a significant aid for developers and engineers of all levels. Simply blocking it because of some bad experiences trying to contribute seems really petty.
I think a common misunderstanding about Stack Overflow is that it's a place to get your questions answered. It's not - that's only a secondary use case. The primary purpose of S.O. is to produce a searchable corpus of answers with few duplicates and pretty high-quality answers. They're optimizing for being the first google result for "how to do X in Y language." They're not optimizing for being the best place for an…
This is the problem with online communities in 2023. They no longer want to be communities. New people come and get told 'we already talked about that in 2012' or other super friendly things, and then leave. You have a core of grumpy longtime members slowly getting older and grumpier and a business model that doesn't want to be a community resulting in a 'community' with no interest in being a 'community'.
I think a common misunderstanding about Stack Overflow is that it's a place to get your questions answered. It's not - that's only a secondary use case. The primary purpose of S.O. is to produce a searchable corpus of answers with few duplicates and pretty high-quality answers. They're optimizing for being the first google result for "how to do X in Y language." They're not optimizing for being the best place for an…
My favorite is people downvoting and arguing about answers I posted over a decade ago. "Yeah, I know that's not how you'd solve a problem in Python today. It was a good answer in 2011 when I wrote it. How bored are you, exactly, that this is how you want to spend your days?"
I don’t care about the downvotes but I hate when people make misguided attempts to “improve” old answers. The most recent was someone who went in and removed use of the word “you” as an attempt to “depersonalize” the answer. There was some kind of recognizable idea behind the edits, but the user’s changes mostly just damaged the readability and made the answers more convoluted. The editor argued with me and linked to…
What I find off-putting about StackOverflow is their crowd-sourced moderation system (which I got access to at some point due to karma threshold). It’s based on pre-categorised moderation queues with flagged submissions that you can (have to) go through, and it’s designed in a way that you mostly choose from a set of pre-fabricated standard responses to “resolve” the issue. The eventual moderation decision is “democr…
Underrated reply. Do you have screenshots of what that looks like?
- All moderation queues: https://files.jotaen.net/!nmezmQKFdH
- View for reviewing something: https://files.jotaen.net/!KwekXrbj36
- Popover when selecting “Share Feedback”: https://files.jotaen.net/!FgRNhhfAT8
- Resulting comment after selecting one of the canned responses: https://files.jotaen.net/!JUtTBMxApL
Last time I used this system was multiple years ago. As I just took the screenshots, it appears some things have changed compared to how I remember it from the past. Specifically: (take with a grain of salt, though!)
- the option whether to share feedback “as yourself”, I think that used to be the default back then, and the “Community Bot” seems new.
- the “custom comment” option didn’t used to be available in all queue categories.
By the way, there was no onboarding to this moderation system whatsoever, so when I reached the required karma threshold (2000 or so?), I just got access to it à la “there you go, please help yourself”.
Also, there is no way to communicate with other moderators on an issue, but everyone is just doing their own thing in isolation until there appears to be some “statistical consensus”.