Live data from Hacker News

What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

data.stackexchange.com

431–440 of 615 posts

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect I'm similar to many users, in that I came to Stack Overflow near the peak, and used it as basically a specialized search engine, without ever asking or answering a question. (I assume this is possible only if you use a widespread stack.) When something better came along, I just moved on. I hadn't directly experienced a sense of community, so I experienced (for example) bureaucratically-closed questions more…

As someone who came into the industry in college, the problem with SO was simply that it was too hard to ask a question. They were up your ass about minutia that really didn't matter. Good riddance and can't wait to visit the site and see an EOL static page.

> They were up your ass about minutia that really didn't matter. Good riddance and can't wait to visit the site and see an EOL static page.

Well said. It was just something I (and I'm guessing other software devs) put up with because that was the only option. The "ask a question" button was radioactive to me having seen the kind of dogpiling onto people who were asking clearly relevant questions but breaking imaginary rules.

Plus with how much "reputation" early users had amassed just for asking basic questions constituting low hanging fruit, there was no way for any new participant to get enough rep or whatever to begin contributing back to the community. IMO they pioneered the first K-shaped economy.

I felt a little bad when I saw the graph of their traffic fall precipitously, just to be replaced with schadenfreude with the insane takes of their community moderators blaming everything but the culture they'd cultivated ("less questions is actually good, because that's the goal of SO").

In short, I'm eagerly awaiting the death of that rotten place.

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If SO wants to be good, it will encourage a back-and-forth: "are you trying X?" but it doesn't want to be good. Private equity doesn't understand going concerns.

I think I’d like to see a site where people posted their chat results that ended in a successful resolution. Just for isolated bugs or library use questions. Would not be useful for a lot of the internal work I do but maybe saving those internally would be useful inside a company

Or another LLM layer that takes a chat and formats it into a StackOverflow style Q/A post

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That basic idea is what made SO attractive in the first place, compared to forums where you had to scroll through pages and pages of in-jokes and tangents and animated-GIF signatures just to try and see if there is an answer. Where they went wrong, in my opinion, is in the implementation details. It's mostly death by a thousand cuts: Requiring reputation to gain the ability to post comments, then having one's answers…

> Requiring reputation to gain the ability to post comments, then having one's answers deleted as "this should've been a comment" Yep, this exactly happened to me. I felt like a taker for always reading SO but not contributing. I saw an answer that was out of date, so I tried to point it out. I couldn't make a comment, so I put it in another answer. Got banned from answering until I got my points up, and the only way…

> And then I discovered SO meta. Holy cow. Those people were so far up their own butts, they couldn't see daylight. I was morbidly transfixed.

It's validating to see that I wasn't wrong in my assessment. The comments and takes under the post which showed the drop in traffic was eye opening. That website was just a walking corpse if they weren't seeing the plain truth and spinning the drop in traffic as a good thing, because apparently it meant that they were not getting stupid questions anymore and those were going to AI now.

Not realizing the kind of mind share loss here. The next generation of developers aren't going to go through a phase where they rely on SO.

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media has been a fascinating experiment in human behaviour. We’ve long had discussion forums built around technical topics, from the early days of Usenet, through the likes of Slashdot and Digg, the arrival of Stack Overflow, and today the popularity of Reddit and some smaller sites like HN. Each has developed its own culture. Each has dealt with the need to prioritise the most valuable contributions and reduc…

Re: quis custodiet ipsos custodes... Slashdot has a meta-moderation setup where random users (with at least a minimum tenure and rating on the site) would get to vote on the quality of the moderation for randomly selected posts. I still think that this has a lot of potential for improving moderation, even if it's just used as a way of ferriting out problematic moderation.

Yeah, I really like Slashdot's approach to both regular and meta moderation.

I don't understand why it never caught on elsewhere.

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#436
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's approximated by a bell curve doesn't make it a bell curve. There are quite obvious separate phenomena shaping the curve at different times.

> just because it's approximated by a bell curve doesn't make it a bell curve I'm going to assume this is bait...

You can't call it a bell curve unless it's from the Charles Murray region. It's just sparkling statistics.

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re: quis custodiet ipsos custodes... Slashdot has a meta-moderation setup where random users (with at least a minimum tenure and rating on the site) would get to vote on the quality of the moderation for randomly selected posts. I still think that this has a lot of potential for improving moderation, even if it's just used as a way of ferriting out problematic moderation.

Yeah, I really like Slashdot's approach to both regular and meta moderation. I don't understand why it never caught on elsewhere.

The big downside of the moderation system on Slashdot is that you can’t both participate in a discussion and moderate at the same time. I want people who are interested and well informed on a subject doing both in the same discussion!

Meta-moderation was an interesting idea, though they seemed to have stopped promoting it much by the time I stopped posting there often. I’m not convinced it’s as effective as having a small pool of “super-moderators” who can not only affect the prioritisation/visibility but also comment themselves to guide contributors in positive directions, but practically speaking, it might be more scalable.

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graph proves the cause of their decline was AI, and not aggressive question moderation. Ask yourself: in what year did it become difficult to ask questions on Stack Overflow? 2014? 2016? 2018? 2020? Aggressive question-closing was part of their design from the very beginning. Their high barriers to question-asking was the cause of their rise , as their primary user was never question writers: it was Google, and a…

> The same thing is happening to Wikipedia Can you explain? I am read-only there and it seems better than ever. Even in the era of LLMs, Wiki is still an awesome source.

Wikipedia's traffic (and donations) are collapsing. https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/10/17/new-user-trends-on-wik...

People don't like to think of it this way, but Wikipedia is funded by ads. Except, the ads only advertise one thing: requests for donations. If people don't visit Wikipedia, because the AI regurgitated Wikipedia's answers, they won't see Wikipedia's donation ads, and they won't donate.

Over time, if current trends continue, more and more people won't even know about Wikipedia. They won't have any "warm feeling" towards the project, because they never go there, they never use it, they never see what good it does them.

Re: What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph

#440
post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The graph proves the cause of their decline was AI, and not aggressive question moderation. Ask yourself: in what year did it become difficult to ask questions on Stack Overflow? 2014? 2016? 2018? 2020? Aggressive question-closing was part of their design from the very beginning. Their high barriers to question-asking was the cause of their rise , as their primary user was never question writers: it was Google, and a…

> The same thing is happening to Wikipedia, BTW, which is also aggressively moderated [citation needed] Well here it is, and you're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statistics The article creation and edits curves are stable. The former growing at a slightly declining pace, which is expected since the amount of knowledge is finite. The latter is literally flat. The monthly page views are in decline on m…

https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/10/17/new-user-trends-on-wik...
Post reply on HN