Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

codingthewheel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

#91

Post by hayd »

imron wrote: post #34
DennisP wrote: post #2

Considering that whenever I google a programming question, the most useful answer is generally on StackOverflow and at the top of the search results, I have a hard time considering it harmful in any way. It might not be perfect, but I don't know anything better.

The author of the article isn't saying it's harmful for people searching for questions that already have good answers. He's saying that people who contribute heavily to the site with answers, knowledge and moderation are probably better off spending that time doing something more productive. And with the gamification system keeping them at it, it harms them when they could be doing something more productive than chas…

How's it different from mailing lists? IMO after a certain stage the gamification aspect goes away (for high rep users) - that's not the reason they contribute.

Re: StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

#92

Post by aalear »

davidgerard wrote: post #80
codinghorror wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is Creative Commons content, if you are legitimately pruning old low value content of yours that is totaly fine. But rage quits where people just want to take their content and go home, withdrawing it from the commons out of anger, is not OK. You can always get to older content even deleted content through the regular Creative Commons data dumps that the whole Stack network publishes torrents of. You can al…

It's pretty clear you need a way for people to remove their names , then.

We have that. http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remov...

Re: StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

#93

Post by davidgerard »

aalear wrote: post #92
davidgerard wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty clear you need a way for people to remove their names , then.

We have that. http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/96732/how-do-i-remov...

That appears to say you have "you could ask, a mod might action it, but if they're opposed you might be able to beg a dev to ..." That is to say, you really don't "have that".

Re: StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

#94

Post by hnwoj »

I have a love(70%)-hate(30%) relationship with SO. Pros: - someone often had a long time ago the same problem as I have, the are 14 answers I can shop in. - I learned a few concepts just because so many people were referring to them (comprehensions in Python for instance - magnificent) Cons: - incredible ego of some, punishing what they feel bring "wrong" with coward, anonymous downvotes - someone always knows better what I want to ask, even though my question is well-researched. It is well researched exactly bacause I want to fend off these guys, but they are still there, lurking in the shadows :)

Re: StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

#95

Post by knorby »

tsotha wrote: post #54
knorby wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of collaborative communities where post deletion is allowed. There is clearly a different level of value between a SO question and a reddit comment thread, but deletions are almost always disruptive in some way. But those posts have his name on them. He is judged by them, and he in some way has to stand by them. I don't know that deletion should be an assured right with all user-created content, but…

>... no one should be publishing someone else's content under their name without their continued consent. I disagree. That's the deal when you add content to one of these kinds of sites - you don't own it. And you know that going in. And there are valid reasons to disallow it: if people start deleting their own answers the conversation becomes (in some cases) impossible to follow. It's kind of silly to be so heavily…

But StackOverflow sites allows deletion, at least in part, as the author points out. So it is fair to say they aren't really enforcing that notion either.

I don't think I'm necessarily hinting at a copyright issue, though I think some control over attribution is pretty fundamental to it, but the point I'm trying to make is that the right of attribution is a stronger one than SO's right to maintain high-quality content. There are a number of ways that right can be accommodated, and it is the job of the publisher to figure out how.

Re: StackOverflow Considered Harmful?

#96

Post by knorby »

foobarbecue wrote: post #59
knorby wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of collaborative communities where post deletion is allowed. There is clearly a different level of value between a SO question and a reddit comment thread, but deletions are almost always disruptive in some way. But those posts have his name on them. He is judged by them, and he in some way has to stand by them. I don't know that deletion should be an assured right with all user-created content, but…

knorby, my main point wasn't about who holds copyright here, but it was to say that when he deleted a question, he was also deleting answers that other people had written. You really do need a good reason to do that.

Why is that the author's problem rather than a problem of StackOverflow's? I'm not going to suggest I know a better way, but it is up to them to figure out. If you build a site around user-generated content, these are problems that can't be dismissed.

Anyway, I would say a user has a stronger right to delete content than other users' have to keep their connected content up.

Post reply on HN