Stack Overflow is almost dead

> Damaging a contributor's reputation because they didn't initially conform to your standard is vandalism.

So, you tell me, vandalism is when you notice that someone's content doesn't meet standards, rate it accordingly using the system that was explicitly designed for that purpose, and it ends up incidentally (because of a system we don't get to change) "damaging the reputation" of its author... ?

By the way, the only thing those reputation points are good for is gatekeeping access to privileges that are supposed to be exercised by people who understand how the site is supposed to work, so that they can help keep the site working as intended.

So it's a little hard for me to get too bent out of shape about it. There are a ton of problems with the design (https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/387356), but this is not one of them.

> Why don't you make your suggestion for improvement

I, personally, often do. But people are not required to, by policy, in part because they get cursed at when they try. Because most of these questions not conforming to standards come from people who don't give a damn about what the site is or what it's trying to accomplish, and feel entitled to a personalized answer about whatever it is.

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436/

But also because there is a relatively small, specific set of things that can be wrong with a question (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/417476/); when your question is closed, you are generally automatically told which applies (it comes from the system according to the close votes), and that's normally all the information you should need if you actually care about the site and have read the policy basics.

It's no wonder LLMs have taken off in this space. They provide that exact service, by design. Stack Overflow does not, by design.

> and let the poster bring the post into compliance?

Nobody has ever been prevented from doing this except for actual spammers and vandals. Even if your question is "deleted" you still have an interface to access it, edit it and nominate it for undeletion. When your question is merely closed, that is explicitly soliciting you to fix it.

> do you think that by damaging my reputation

Oh, the other thing is that your reputation starts at 1 and cannot go below 1. So this doesn't matter in the slightest for new users. (There are rate limits, intended to make you pay attention to the guidelines and read the explanations in the Help Center before trying to post again.)

> Maybe it's just a misplaced conviction that punishment is the best way to motivate the behavior you are seeking.

No, none of this is about punishment. Downvotes apply to the content, not to you.

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/366889 https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/121350

My community is not special. It has the same right to decide and enforce its standards that everywhere else on the Internet does. The fact that you see a shiny button labelled "Ask a Question" and a text input box does not change what those standards are. You are the one coming to a new space on the Internet; therefore, you are the one responsible for understanding the basics of what is expected in that space.

> I have a deadline and a problem.

Stack Overflow is by design not there to help you with this:

https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/284236 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/326569

If you come to Stack Overflow for this, you come to the wrong website.

If you expect Stack Overflow to help you with this, it is because you have failed to understand the purpose of Stack Overflow.

We do not provide technical support, a help desk, a debugging service, etc.

> I've already spent 5 hours researching why what should work - according the the documentation and the conventional advice - doesn't.

Instead of that: if you have code that doesn't work, you should debug the code and look for something specific that doesn't do what you expect it to. Then you should create a minimal, reproducible example of the issue - code that someone else can run directly, without adding or changing anything (i.e., hard-code any necessary input) to see the exact problem, right away (i.e., without interacting with the program any more than necessary; without waiting for other things to happen first unless they have to happen to reproduce the bug). And skip anything that comes after that.

The reason we expect this is because, pause for dramatic effect, answering your question is not about your deadline or the problem you are trying to solve. It's not about you.

It's about the site, and about having a question that everyone can find useful.

> And when I tried to have the discussion we are having now, on the stack overflow meta site, your fellow enforcers shut down the discussion and deleted the posting.

Feel free to share the link. I can see deleted posts there.

> but a significant chunk of your former user base, you might want to look inward, and at the same time ask with a certain measure of humility - what are we doing wrong and how can we improve?

We aren't doing anything wrong. The site is better off for the departure of people who have demonstrated a consistent refusal to use the site as intended. Because it is not about them.

> is it necessary to start off by immediately deducting from the poster's reputation?

It is necessary to mark the question as low quality, so that questions can be sorted by quality and people can prioritize their time, yes.

It is not about you.

> Stop dehumanizing your knowledge base.

A knowledge base inherently lacks humanity. When you look something up in the documentation, do you want the documentation to be written as if it were speaking to you directly? I think that's creepy. The documentation was written possibly years before I read it. It knows nothing about me. It didn't even know that I would use the software in the future.

> Do you want humans communicating on your platform?

No, in fact. It is not social media, either.

Perhaps you've noticed that the comments are not threaded, that you can't have another question post further down the page in between the answers, that all the answers are supposed address the question, and not the other answers. (And, crucially, they address the question, not the person who asked it.)

All of that is deliberate. 2008 wasn't that long ago. Many sites much older than Stack Overflow support all of those modes of interaction.

Stack Overflow does not. By design.

Not only that, but comments can be deleted at any time, because they are "no longer needed". They aren't supposed stick around unless they're explaining something that other people may need to see years later (and even then it may be better to edit into the answer).

By design.

> Don't ding people for saying please and thank you and expect them to like you for it.

You don't realistically get "dinged" for this. Whatever question of yours was downvoted to -4 (since your "reputation decreased by 8 points") certainly had other things wrong with it.

Sure, these things were edited out of your question; the post does not belong to you (in the terms of service, you license it to the community).

> Change your game, maybe I'll be back one day.

The site is what it is. Sites on the Internet are allowed to be what they want to be. You are not entitled to them changing to suit you.

I can think of multiple users offhand with 500k+ rep that I think are more damaging to the site than any newcomer ever could be. (No, I will not name names.) And I previously showed you a link of someone with 60k+ rep (slightly more than me) who went 14 years without even trying to use the meta site for anything and demonstrated a complete failure to understand the basic standards for questions.

Two thirds of the wikipedia article i wrote in 2003 have been deleted by rabid editors. It was a biography of my father, written based on interviews with my mother. I have found that restoring any of the rabid editor deletions results in threats of me being banned from editing my own article.

Of course not. But I'm entitled to look elsewhere. Thanks for clarifying, better than I could myself, why I no longer use SO.