Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fall of Stack Overflow

observablehq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 808 posts

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#471

Post by JohnMakin »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #370
JohnMakin wrote: post #109

The problems I’ve noticed with Stack Overflow are a few and hard for me to narrow down but basically: - google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago - moderation on SO has gotten progressively more horrible. can’t tell you how many times I found the exact, bizarre question I was asking only to see one comment trying to answer it and then a mod aggressively sh…

> google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago I haven't noticed that at all. I also haven't noticed any degradation in the results on Google overall contrarily to what people claim. What I have noticed though is that every time someone complains about search results and shares the way they search on Google, it becomes obvious that the problem is between the…

I’ve been using stackoverflow for 15 years. Search results were fine for at least 10 of those. But yea, I’m sure it’s me and all the other people agreeing search got worse are also dumb like your girlfriend, thanks for the condescending and helpful answer, mr google turfer

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#472

Post by bad_alloc »

sznio wrote: post #349
JohnMakin wrote: post #109

The problems I’ve noticed with Stack Overflow are a few and hard for me to narrow down but basically: - google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago - moderation on SO has gotten progressively more horrible. can’t tell you how many times I found the exact, bizarre question I was asking only to see one comment trying to answer it and then a mod aggressively sh…

Your first point seems to be most important. > - google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago SO might be horrible now, but it still holds years worth of answers that were just fine a few years ago - so why aren't they showing up now? Google's current recommendation of going to w3schools or - even worse - geeks4geeks or any other content farm is and always wi…

Conspiracy theory: Bad initial search results forces people to search more often, hence allowing google to show more ads. Since few people switch away as a result, they continue doing this.

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#473

Post by lelanthran »

pwdisswordfishc wrote: post #307
axblount wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that sometimes poeple just want 'X by Y'. To get a question answered, you shouldn't have to list every constraint and design descision that led you to that point. Comes up all the time when people ask how to do things in bash/sh. I know there are better tools for the job, but this is the one I have.

> I know there are better tools for the job, but this is the one I have. You may know, but someone else asking the exact same question may not. So sorry then, but listing every constraint and design descision it is.

> So sorry then, but listing every constraint and design descision it is.

You don't need to do that, a simple "I know what the XY problem is, and this isn't it" prefixed to every question you ask should be enough to stop the race to tell you all about the XY problem.

I mean, at this point it's clear that more people know about the XY problem than people ho don't.

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#474

Post by permo-w »

geysersam wrote: post #444
lolc wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that Google has an incentive to send people to content farms because those farms will show Google's ads. Stackoverflow doesn't. So they can increase ad exposure. Thinking of it, it would be an interesting test to compare the ranking of two similar sites, one with google ads, another with ads from another provider. Might be good evidence for antitrust litigation. But what do you do if they just pre…

Maybe you're correct. I've heard that explanation before but it just seems too incredible that they'd undermine their monopolistic global billion dollar business for a measly share of the revenue of geeks4geeks.

the way you phrase it there makes it sounds miniscule, but you scale that up to the size of the SEOified internet and the numbers are surely into the billions

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#475

Post by rho4 »

Nowadays my questions are much more likely to get closed and it is impossible to get them reopened. This takes a pretty big emotional toll, as I usually invest quite a bit of time to describe my problems.

People vote to close and then move on. I don't mind editing my questions to satisfy the moderator's demands, but not if it has zero effect and just wastes my time.

I think people should be required to confirm their close/down-votes after a question or answer was edited, or else the votes should be automatically reverted. This mechanism should probably only apply within a limited time period after the question/answer was posted (or until a certain period of inactivity has passed).

It saddens me deeply, but currently I prefer not to ask questions, because the experience is so jarring.

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#476

Post by xertopertha »

JohnMakin wrote: post #120
JohnMakin wrote: post #109

The problems I’ve noticed with Stack Overflow are a few and hard for me to narrow down but basically: - google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago - moderation on SO has gotten progressively more horrible. can’t tell you how many times I found the exact, bizarre question I was asking only to see one comment trying to answer it and then a mod aggressively sh…

here’s a classic SO thread: OP: “how can I accomplish X doing Y?” top voted response: “I wouldnt do X by Y. Instead, I’d consider Z. It’ll do everything X by Y would do, plus these other things.” buried sub comment to top voted response: “that’s not what he asked, to do X by Y (exact solution provided)” then 10 comments blasting the guy who actually answered the question for not doing it the way the top voted answer…

Should get rid of the reward system -- or at least reform it drastically to discourage pettiness. An accepted solution should not result in a reward to anybody. Somebody just starting to learn a topic posts a basic question and gets an answer from an old timer - and they both get rewarded! for what? There seems to be an army of "moderators" who are ready to pounce on easy questions and they end the answer by reminding the OP that he should upvote or accept the answer! Did any of them added anything to the knowledge base? You can get excellent answers to basic questions from ChatGPT anyway. Also they won't allow new members (perhaps experts) from commenting until they have picked up enough credits yet. The whole system is downright silly.

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#477

Post by kzrdude »

kebman wrote: post #436

I used to contribute a lot to Stack Overflow, but then I noticed that I’d get flamed for even asking simple questions; stuff that can really stand between actually getting somewhere with your code, and where a helpful comment could really make a difference. At some point regular replies were replaced by administrators and mods who are seemingly far more interested in finding faults with your question rather than to a…

Another observation is that sometimes it feels like you get answers to your question in contempt. Someone writes an answer but at the same time assure you that your question is not good enough. Or they answer it but don't upvote the question. (If the question is not worthwhile, why answer it? Probably for rep.)

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#478

Post by ThereIsNoWorry »

Imagine gatekeeping what and how you can ask questions because of some fear of redundancy. Who the fuck cares if the same questions comes up each month, that means it's an important fundamental topic and can be handled differently than just shooting down the poster. The same for answers. It's a horrible website full of elitists. I never really used it often but I did roll my eyes everytime I saw a shut down thread that would coincide with the question I wanted to find an answer for.

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#479

Post by soco »

sznio wrote: post #349
JohnMakin wrote: post #109

The problems I’ve noticed with Stack Overflow are a few and hard for me to narrow down but basically: - google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago - moderation on SO has gotten progressively more horrible. can’t tell you how many times I found the exact, bizarre question I was asking only to see one comment trying to answer it and then a mod aggressively sh…

Your first point seems to be most important. > - google used to return really relevant results for SO, and it stopped doing so at some point a while ago SO might be horrible now, but it still holds years worth of answers that were just fine a few years ago - so why aren't they showing up now? Google's current recommendation of going to w3schools or - even worse - geeks4geeks or any other content farm is and always wi…

Google's current recommendation is usually heaps of Pinterest randomness, and then they wonder why people start relying on ChatGPT "oh it's not a search engine" - sorry folks Google isn't one (anymore) either.

Re: The Fall of Stack Overflow

#480

Post by collaborative »

One of the bad side-effects of this is the effect on "free" support channels like GCP SO tags. Questions rarely get answered, and you often will get an "answer" reminding you this is a volunteer forum. This can be quite bad when the question is "what does error xyz mean and why is it crashing everything". It makes community driven support a no-go
Post reply on HN