Live data from Hacker News

The Stack Overflow Age

joelonsoftware.com

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#31
post #3

The Pedant Police make Stack Overflow very difficult to use.

Rules/purity oriented folks (what you call "The Pedant Police") do make it harder to use . . . for askers and a little bit for answerers. But they make it a lot easier to use for people who want to find already-written answers to their questions. As Jeff says in TFA, that's the tradeoff they want to make:

> Most importantly, we realized that each question is asked by one person but the answers are seen by thousands of people who found it through a search. So we decided to optimize everything to be useful for the thousands, not the individual. We literally have 1000 visitors for every person who asks a question. That’s why we sort the answers by votes. It’s also why we optimize for questions and answers that will be helpful to other people, later.

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#32
post #24
post #2

> One of the biggest such forums was called Experts Exchange. By what metric? I don’t know anybody who was actually subscribed there (although they must have existed). Instead, people were using various other forums that were free. Some of these forums were absolutely huge, both in terms of number of users, and by the number of questions/discussions. Experts Exchange started dominating Google search results, true. Bu…

I don't know a lot of people who subscribe to stackoverflow either. Use it? yes. Subscribe? no.

Experts Exchange used to cost money to use. (a subscription)

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#33
post #9

It's too bad the culture of SO turned out the way it did. I was eager and happy to use it early on but was quickly disillusioned and it's my last resort to turn to if I have questions these days.

From a "lurker" perspective who often stumbles on SO after a web search it's really a great resource.

On the other hand I never actually contributed anything to the website... because it won't let me. One day I stumbled upon a question regarding some problem I had, the accepted answer had a C code snippet that contained an error. I thought I'd be a good netizen and decided to create an account to submit a correction. It turns out that it wouldn't let me make an edit that was less than 6 character long (why? It was just a one character typo). So I decided to add a comment pointing it out, hoping that somebody would be able to fix it for me. You can't comment without a certain reputation threshold.

So basically if I get it right if you have a new account you can only ask questions or answer them. Except if like me you only end up on SO from your search engine and generally end up on already-answered questions (or questions you don't know the answer to since you're looking for them) then there's nothing for you to do. I'm sure they must have done a lot of testing to end up with this system but it basically means that I'll probably never contribute anything to their website.

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#34
It's interesting to see all the negative comments about the SO culture here. I just hadn't really noticed it but maybe it is a problem for beginners. I generally find what I'm looking for and when I post a question I try to research first to avoid spam. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#35
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know a lot of people who subscribe to stackoverflow either. Use it? yes. Subscribe? no.

In order to view an answer on Experts Exchange, you had to subscribe.

Did you? I always just scrolled past the fold.

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#36
post #19

SO is definitely a force, but I feel its usefulness has faded from inattention to the user experience and use cases. For example: #1. There's a huge "homework problem" (narrow, specific questions that aren't broadly useful). Consider flagging homework as homework (and excluding it from searches), trying to divert questioners to other resources before their question is posted ("this looks like homework..."), and more…

On #3 and #4 I had what I believed to be some reasonable conceptions to formulate parameters for a discussion, here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/71522

Basically I suggest dividing the questions into categories of:

1. Timeless: Questions with a timeless best answer, which is unlikely to be improved or updated in the future;

2. Revolving: Questions with a "best answer" today but in the future there will be a "better answer"; and

3. Wiki: Questions that are constantly being improved and updated.

Among a few other notions.

Insofar as it was a problem of interest when I wrote it in 2010, it's only become a more prominent issue since.

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#37
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps in the first case the question you asked was too broad compared to the standard expected for SO questions? Or too precise to be of use to anyone else?

The question was pretty broad but I think discussing it would have been very valuable for quite a few people. What bothered me were the snide responses. At minimum they should have stayed quiet or explained that SO doesn't deal with this kind of question.

> discussing

SO is not for discussion!

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#38
post #9

It's too bad the culture of SO turned out the way it did. I was eager and happy to use it early on but was quickly disillusioned and it's my last resort to turn to if I have questions these days.

The perception of a culture problem on SO seems quite strong with a few people here. I'm sure bad things happen but it always seemed a) fairly rare and b) a price worth paying.... Without it, it would be like the Qlikview forums in no time! ;-)

This is the thing. The vast majority of (sane) users likely get on just fine without complaint. It's usually a noisy minority of folks who vocalise their grievances, especially when the rules of the site won't fit their world view of how they think the site should work.

I've been a user on the site (and once upon a time a diamond mod) since the closed beta (userid < 500). Sure I've had my ups and downs and haven't always agreed with the way some things work. But at the end of the day I still think SO and the SE network is hugely useful for getting answers to questions on stuff I'm pottering about with.

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#39

It's interesting to see all the negative comments about the SO culture here. I just hadn't really noticed it but maybe it is a problem for beginners. I generally find what I'm looking for and when I post a question I try to research first to avoid spam. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

I cannot help but read "beginners" in a derogatory tone. Or at the very least a way to hand-wave away the unhealthy atmosphere that has formed at SO.

It is definitely a problem for people with low SO Reputation since others can come along and edit their posts completely changing the context and meaning, and seem more brave to bully low rep users (e.g. delete/dup their posts).

I have fairly high SO Rep from way-back-when, and all I seem to use that for is undoing others abusive mod actions (like de-dupping something that points to a completely different programming language or framework). But it isn't a community I care to take part in much these days, too toxic.

Back in my day SO existed exactly to help beginners. Now they want to be "the Wikipedia of programming questions." So be it, but none of us have to stick around to help form their little out of date empire of desert.

Re: The Stack Overflow Age

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In order to view an answer on Experts Exchange, you had to subscribe.

Did you? I always just scrolled past the fold.

I think they changed it once SO started becoming popular (I may be misremembering the timeline, but I definitely remember being very frustrated about not being able to view the answers at one point)
Post reply on HN