Live data from Hacker News

Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

michael.richter.name

61–70 of 243 posts

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#61

StackOverflow is a machine designed to do one thing: make it so that, for any given programming question, you will get a search engine hit on their site and find a good answer quickly. And see some ads. That's really it. Everything it does is geared toward that, and it does it quite well. I have lots of SO points. A lot of them have come from answering common, basic questions. If you think points exist to prove merit…

"Does having easy answers available on SO make us dumber?"

Yes, in that the worlds largest helper only supports simple boring common questions, as per the article. If you're trying to do stats in scala, and the only help you can get is "hello world" in java, that's not good for Scala, statistics, or much of anything else, making the world overall dumber.

By analogy, lets say reality TV shows completely push video documentaries off the air. This is not so far fetched. The net result is likely to be dumber.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#62
The main value I get from stack overflow is easy to find answers to easy questions. I find it easier to find documentation of how to do X on stack overflow than I do in the manuals for most of the tools I use.

Here is the workflow:

1. Google 'question string'

2. Click first stack overflow link

3. Skip to the first answer without reading the question.

This, incredibly, works for about 80% of the things I need to look up day to day. I often find that I either need a simple example, or just need my memory jogged. In my opinion the entire internet is better because of the existence of this one site.

I agree with all of the author's points, but I think stack overflow is worthwhile despite these problems. And trust me, I've gotten my own snarky, low effort, infuriating, heavily upvoted, answers from Jon Skeet.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#63
This reminds me of an old talk radio adage: don't mistake callers for listeners. The people who call into a radio show represent a fraction of the audience, and are often the most extreme, polemic, loose hinged segment of that audience. And most people don't call.

In the SO world, I'm definitely a "listener." I almost always wind up on the site from Google, and it usually does a pretty good job. I don't think I've ever navigated around the site itself, so the "game-ification" or whatever was completely foreign.

I will say that there have been numerous times where there are pretty good subjective or opinion based discussions (which language is better for x?) that get "closed as non constructive." I can understand why they would want to avoid flame wars, but almost always the discussions were, ironically, very constructive, nor could I find the same type of discussion anywhere else.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#64
Stack overflow is awesome. I asked a question about message pack and the author of the software responded.

Ignoring the gamification of S.O. the community that surrounds it and the sheer amount of knowledge it holds makes it an incredible resource never seen before in the history of programming.

Sometimes it seems like human beings could live in a golden palace and be upset that the gold is the wrong color.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually seems to be just the opposite of what he was saying. He stated that he believes this mechanism is broken, to the point that after two years of inactivity, the votes he receives his old answers have kept him in the top 3% of scorers. He's not looking for votes, he's saying it's silly how trivial it is to get them, and also how many points he gets off of a simple LMGTFY answer (your quote), vs how few he…

My point is that it's silly to care about how many points you have in the first place.

The people in charge of where the site "goes" via moderator tools are the people who play the game to accumulate points to get mod powers.

What you reward, you get more of. Therefore the site will move in the direction of point collecting game players.

Doesn't particularly matter what they "should" do, what the site is designed to do, intentionally or otherwise, rightly or wrongly, is what the site will do.

Telling everyone including the people in charge not to do what they are designed to enjoy doing is basically abstinence based sex ed. "Here's something you haven't seen, it's a lot of fun, now don't do it" Good luck with that.

Lets say HN karma points were rewarded on the basis of using the F word in posts. I don't think advising people the moral high ground would be to abstain would clean the place up, if the whole purpose of the design is to encourage it. This might actually be a funny April fools joke to think about...

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#66

The author's main problem stems from his desire to use Stack Overflow as a mechanism for gaining internet points - as is illustrated by his confession that "I saw a simple Java question, hit Google, read briefly, then synthesized an original answer." Why bother? Instead, I use Stack Overflow predominantly for three reasons -- 1. To ask interesting questions that I think will get a better answer there than anywhere el…

That actually seems to be just the opposite of what he was saying. He stated that he believes this mechanism is broken, to the point that after two years of inactivity, the votes he receives his old answers have kept him in the top 3% of scorers. He's not looking for votes, he's saying it's silly how trivial it is to get them, and also how many points he gets off of a simple LMGTFY answer (your quote), vs how few he…

> and also how many points he gets off of a simple LMGTFY answer (your quote), vs how few he gets off a well thought out and explained one (the kernel answer, I believe).

I don't contribute much to SO, though I do a fair bit to some other SE sites (SF, SU, DBA) and it is the same on those but there is a fairly logical explanation most of the time.

A question that requires a more detailed answer is often more specific than one that doesn't, and that more general question is going to get a wider audience (both at the time and afterwards with people finding it in searches) so will attract more votes both for itself and the responses.

The points awarded to an answer are only really relevant within the context of question it is in response to (i.e. compared to the points awarded to other responses to that question). So if you care about your total score just answer simple general questions (this is perfectly acceptable behaviour, any useful answer is helpful to the site as a whole), if on the other hand you want a little mental stimulation answer some of the more involved questions instead.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#67

StackOverflow is a machine designed to do one thing: make it so that, for any given programming question, you will get a search engine hit on their site and find a good answer quickly. And see some ads. That's really it. Everything it does is geared toward that, and it does it quite well. I have lots of SO points. A lot of them have come from answering common, basic questions. If you think points exist to prove merit…

StackOverflow is a machine designed to do one thing: make it so that, for any given programming question, you will get a search engine hit on their site and find a good answer quickly.

Yes, and that is an incredibly valuable service.

I haven't participated in StackOverflow actively, neither asking nor answering questions, for various reasons, some perhaps related to some of the OP's complaints, but it has saved me many hours of searching through documentation and mailing lists just by being there.

I suspect the contribution to global programmer productivity is enormous. It's true that it may tend to reduce the amount of very detailed knowledge about very narrow topics that people need to memorize but I think that externalizing this type of knowledge is the way to go. As long as your mental models about the basic workings of the software you're using are essentially correct I don't think there's much harm in depending on external resources for specific details.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with this convention is that new & anonymous users cannot comment, so the only option they have is to edit the post. These then get rejected out of hand and useful contributions disappear. This is doubly wasteful since this behaviour often discourages people from every contributing again.

No, new and anonymous users do have another option, they can post their own answer. That's irrelevant anyway, since that's not what happened here. The author of the post tried to edit his own answer with a second account. He should have just used his original account and this would have never happened.

No, new and anonymous users do have another option, they can post their own answer.

Which is less wrong than an edit but it`s still wrong when the appropriate response is a comment.

A community can be judged by it`s responses to newbies. By this measure it fails miserably since the most common feedback many newbies get from SO are bare downvotes and rejections. What should happen is a polite response explaining the problem and the what should be done to correct it.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#69
DON'T TRUST ME BLINDLY: I work for Stack Exchange, so I'm totally biased. On the other hand, I left a lucrative career in finance for a lot less money here because I believe in what we're doing, so there's that.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I appreciate Michael's feedback, and he worries about a lot of the same things I do. Moreover, we are incredibly grateful for all he's done over the years - my honest belief is that his contributions (even when they were just fish) helped a ton of people finish a project that may have been what made them LOVE programming. And those people did take the time to learn the fishing techniques underlying those fish, so they could do it better next time.

ON REWARDS: Points aren't the point. Let's be honest. We reward people for helping others with points that essentially convey nothing other than the ability to help in new ways (as you unlock new privileges). No one in their right mind is spending time on the site with the empirical goal of getting points.

The real reason people answer questions is that they like helping people. The points are important, but only insofar as they give you actual feedback on how many people appreciate your effort. The points aren't the reward; they're just a way to measure the real reward people care about: knowing how much of a difference you've made.

So when Michael worries about his points going up even after he's stopped posting, that's the system working. It's not about ensuring the right person is "winning" it's about showing how many people got help.

And he's still helping others today. I respect his decision to leave, but truly think he should be proud of what he's done for the programming community to date. In any case, we're grateful.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#70
I have a few moans about SO, but I also find it very useful. I bear no flair.

The one thing that niggles me most on the web in general, is continuous reinvention. If you must paraphrase someone else's work then do. However most of the time a simple link would suffice. The same for repeat/similar questions. And it's always good to reference your sources.

Post reply on HN