Live data from Hacker News

Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

michael.richter.name

141–150 of 243 posts

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#141
post #94

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…

How many good questions do you see that are "CLOSED AS NOT A REAL QUESTION"? The site is fine for what it is, but there's definitely a market for building a better StackOverFlow.

I remember signing up for a news on a site "Not Constructive", here on HN a while back. I really wish it would appear.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing what you have already tried is useful from a troubleshooting perspective...not to mention that if I suggest something you've already tried, it is wasted time on both our parts; mine for suggesting it and yours for waiting for me to make the redundant suggestion. Many times there are multiple potential causes for an issue. Ruling out what has already been tried is what any competent troubleshooter is going to…

Most of those "show your work" responses are designed purely to force the asker to prove that they have tried to solve the problem himself before asking Stack Overflow. Showing your work can needlessly complicates the question, especially if it requires a lot of explanation. It's also irritating because someone knows the answer but is withholding it until you do what he wants. I had that exact experience when I asked…

Right. The "show your work" stuff is about establishing a proof of work for effort expended on a question before anyone expends effort on an answer. It's a way of keeping the system honest, so askers aren't purely freeloading off answerers. It's a human blockchain!

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#143

> There's an old cliché in English: give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime. StackOverflow is filled to the brim with people giving fishes. This hits the nail on the head, imo. While the SO system is (presumably) meant to reward "karma" based on the quality of answers, more often than not it seems that quantity is just as important. And it's not hard to see why this is the ca…

Paraphrasing: 'the SO system rewards karma based on the quality of answers' Fixed: 'the SO system rewards karma based on the number of people that find an answer useful' The population of people needing answers is heavily biased towards newbies. 100% of new programmers need answers to simple questions. (And only a small fraction of them have learned how to use search Google or documentation properly.) 60% of those ne…

I totally agree with the general gist of your comment, but I think that it's entirely possible to have high-quality answers that aren't necessarily advanced.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#144

Please everybody, please post your "obscure" questions to Stack Overflow. Yes, it's unlikely that you'll get a good answer in any sort of useful timeframe for many of the reasons the OP lists. Sometimes you do get a good answer quickly, saving you hours of frustrating searching. But most times you will have to spend hours figuring it out yourself or you'll end up giving up. Answering your own question won't get you a…

You may also get attempts at answers which don't answer the question, and then people whining at you to accept one when none of them are actually adequate. A small price to pay, admittedly.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#145

I appreciate the author's opinions overall, so this is a nitpick of just one of his core arguments. I think he is inverting the value of certain kinds of questions. To me, Stack Overflow is valuable primarily for the simple answers to simple questions, and secondarily for the complex answers to hard questions. As a software developer well into my second decade of professional experience, I maintain a small number of…

I moved from Perl to Python around 3 years ago. And google searches went from Perl Monks to SO. At first I found Stack Overflow nicer, with its clean modern interface, but as time goes by, I see the moderators attitude getting worse an worse.

Perl Monks encouraged discussion and deeper learning, even though a lot of it came down to Perl Golf.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#146
post #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 ma…

In fairness, it seems to have eliminated Experts Exchange from search results.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#147
post #145

I appreciate the author's opinions overall, so this is a nitpick of just one of his core arguments. I think he is inverting the value of certain kinds of questions. To me, Stack Overflow is valuable primarily for the simple answers to simple questions, and secondarily for the complex answers to hard questions. As a software developer well into my second decade of professional experience, I maintain a small number of…

I moved from Perl to Python around 3 years ago. And google searches went from Perl Monks to SO. At first I found Stack Overflow nicer, with its clean modern interface, but as time goes by, I see the moderators attitude getting worse an worse. Perl Monks encouraged discussion and deeper learning, even though a lot of it came down to Perl Golf.

Yeah, agreed, the other half of things that I didn't mention is that when I do find a good stand-alone community around a technology, that tends to be my go-to place. Especially for free ranging conceptual discussions.

What I see more of these days is a Google Group, or mailing list, or forum with a lot of core users discussing things, planning the future, debating, etc., and then a lot of reference back to Stack Overflow for particular questions that get asked a lot.

And that's really the core purpose of Stack Overflow. When it comes to writing documentation, the area that tends to have the most potential but the least realization of said potential is the FAQ. FAQs provide another dimension to documentation because they address the, "Well, given that I read this documentation, I still don't get X" scenario. No matter how well written the documentation is, there will be things that are not answerable, because software is so multidimensional. Usually the way a FAQ works out is that the person writing the documentation remembers a bunch of questions that were asked and answers them in place. Hopefully people come in later and fill in more answers based on questions that come in later. In the end it languishes. People have tried to address this via forums, wikis, and mailing lists, but in the end forums are a good place for narrative discussion, wikis are a good place for writing documentation period, but both are poor for FAQ because of their built in time decay, lack of voting, etc.

In that sense, Stack Overflow is a FAQ engine is appropriately geared toward explaining particular answers to particular questions.

That said, Stack Overflow became more than that after its community exploded, and I share in the annoyance when some of the more interesting free-ranging questions get shut down because they're open ended. I am not wholly on the side of FAQ-type lockdown.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#148
post #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 ev…

I wish there were a site for subjective opinions. I often want to know what is a better library for a specific task.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#149

I think the biggest problem is not "creeping authoritarianism" or the low quality of quite some questions / answers. The biggest problem in my opinion are voting rings getting more sophisticated and getting undetected for longer and longer period of time, with users from the rings getting more and more rep before action is taken and basically filling the site with spammy questions/answers (and even probably links to…

A typical day's queue of flags on Stack Overflow is around 1000. If your flag isn't tended to the minute it's raised, it's going to be because of the 900 or so others already there taking up time from having to verify the flag reason is correct in the first place.

Re: Why I no longer contribute to Stack Overflow

#150

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…

While you call out the author, note that the primary motivator StackOverflow offers to users are those very internet points you decry: You can't blame someone for playing to the very mechanics of the site. Would StackOverflow be popular if it didn't have leader boards and reputation points and arrays of expertise-claiming badges? Would people spend their time working on other people's problems if it didn't earn them…

>> "the primary motivator StackOverflow offers to users are those very internet points"

I disagree. The reason I answer questions on SO is because of the incredible help I get from it form my own questions and those already answered. I think a lot of people contribute as a way of giving back and internet points don't encourage them in anyway. Sure there are people who internet points are important to but I would guess (and I admit I have no evidence to back this up) most of the people using SO care very little about points.

Post reply on HN