931–940 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I swear that about 3 of your replies look like LLM content or at best "LLM-massaged" messages :-(
I was writing like a robot before robots could write, dammit!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having your SO question closed as off-topic or already answered isn’t believable to you? It is believable. But it being a problem I don't see. If it's off-topic, that's sad for you but no reason to feel angry or it being "hostile" or something. It's just off-topic. Same if I started posting lots of local news from my city to HN. It's simply just off-topic and not what the site should contain. If it's already answer…
Why do you continue to ask for examples if you're just going to downplay them or explain them away like you did here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they’re pretty good at getting info that is very up to date by using tools to access the web Yeah that's a charitable way to phrase "perform distributed denial of service attacks". Browsing github as a human with their draconian rate limits that came about as a result of AI bots is fucking great.
You know DDoS attacks are illegal, right? If you have proof that OpenAI is DDoSing your site, go sue them for millions of dollars.
I don't run personal sites worth millions of dollars. I do, however, use sites like Sourcehut, DigiKey, Github, Mouser, Farnell, etc, etc, etc. that have opted to put everything behind bullshit captchas because of the DDoS (nee AI) bots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His tone was extremely passive aggressive and rude. I don’t think he made the site better - he contributed to the downfall
This sounds plausible - I grew up in the Midwestern US, and thus "vaguely passive-aggressive" is pretty much my native language. The hardest part of the job for me was remembering to communicate in an overtly aggressive manner when necessary, developing a habit of drawing a sharp line between "this is a debate" and "this is how it is." Sometimes I put that line in the wrong place. That said... I can't take credit for…
I spent the last 14 days chasing an issue with a Spark transform. Gemini and Claude were exceptionally good at giving me answers that looked perfectly reasonable: none of them worked, they were almost always completely off-road. Eventually I tried with something else, and found a question on stackoverflow, luckily with an answer. That was the game changer and eventually I was able to find the right doc in the Spark (…
What I always appreciate about SO is the dialogue between commenters. LLMs give one answer, or bullet points around a theme, or just dump a load of code in your IDE. SO gives a debate, in which the finer points of an issue are thrashed out, with the best answers (by and large) floating to the top. SO, at its best, is numerous highly-experienced and intelligent humans trying to demonstrate how clever they are. A bit l…
Perhaps the antidote involves a drop of the poison.
Let an LLM answer first, then let humans collaborate to improve the answer.
Bonus: if you can safeguard it, the improved answer can be used to train a proprietary model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, you don't. Not only there are many examples of detailed stackoverflow articles written by absolute experts, you also need answer often for something trivial(which is like half of my chatgpt), e.g. how to export in pgadmin, or a nondescriptive error in linux.
> No, you don't. When someone says "I feel like" and you answer "No, you don't", you're most certainly wrong :-). I do feel like the parent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And half the garbage is from people "moderating"! You are literally rewarded points for doing moderating activities, so of course every post is flooded with BS edits, votes to close, etc.. Cobra effect and whatnot.
What points do you get for moderation activity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just that those goals (i.e. "we want people to be able to search for information and find high-quality answers to well-scoped, clear questions that a reasonably broad audience can be interested in, and avoid duplicating effort") don't align with those of the average person asking a question (i.e. "I want my code to work"). This explains the graph in question: Stackoverflow's goals were misaligned to humans. Pr…
Well, yes. Most people want to be given a fish, rather than learning how to fish. That is not a reason for fishing instructors to give up. And it is not a reason why the facility should hand out fish; and when the instructors go to town and hear gossip about how stingy they are, it really just isn't going to ring true to them.
Understood, but that is not what SO represented itself as. They called themselves a Q and A site, not a wiki of fact-checked information.
From what you are saying, they pretended to give fish when in reality only teaching fishing. Users went their because they were told that they could get fish, and only found out once there that there was no fish, only fishing lessons.
Blame lies squarely on SO, not on users. If SO clarified their marketing as "Not a Q and A site" then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Right now, the only description of the SO site is on stack-exchange, and this is what it says on the landing page, front and center:
Stack Exchange Q&A communities are different.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right? It's a perfect example of the problem. In college, I worked tech support. My approach was to treat users as people. To see all questions as legitimate, and any knowledge differential on my part as a) the whole point of tech support, and b) an opportunity to help. But there were some people who used any differential in knowledge or power as an opportunity to feel superior. And often, to act that way. To think o…
When I worked technical support in college I often worked nights and weekends (long uninterrupted times to work on homework or play games) ... there was a person who would call and ask non-computer questions. They were potentially legitimate questions - "what cheese should I use for macaroni and cheese?" Sometimes they just wanted to talk. Not every text area that you can type a question in is appropriate for asking…
This is a very charitable read of the situation. Much more likely is, as another commenter posted, a set of people experiencing a small amount of power for the first time immediately used it for status and took their "first opportunity to be the bully".
> It was designed to be a library of questions and answers that was searchable.
It obviously was only tolerated because of that, as evidenced by the exodus the moment a viable alternative became available.