5 ms·

The Pedant Police make Stack Overflow very difficult to use.

by clavalle 9y ago

booleandilemma 9y ago
I don’t think so. They try to keep it a question and answer site, not a question and opinion site.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I have tried to ask questions two times in the last few months and the responses were pretty much "if you don't know what you are doing you should hire an expert" or "why would would anyone do such a thing?". I definitely didn't feel very welcome and will stop posting there. It seems most questions that get answers are very simple and straightforward ones. Difficult stuff doesn't get discussed.
  - baud147258 9y ago
    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?
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      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.
      - aw3c2 9y ago
        > discussing SO is not for discussion!
        Someone1234 9y ago
        Until it is. Ironically most of the more helpful SO google results are helpful exactly because of the discussion/updates that took place in the comment chain under an answer from ten years earlier. > Guys how do I filter an array in JavaScript?! >> Use XYZ >>> XYZ works, but it doesn't work in IE5 >>>> If you're on IE10 or above you can use ABC instead of XYZ, it is cleaner! >>>>> Hey guys, change this {} to this {}, makes it faster on mobile!
        shagie 9y ago
        The indents there suggest a threaded discussion that looks more like a 1 on 1 chat or threaded discussion board. Wouldn’t one of those resources be a better place to hold such a discussion?
        sosborn 9y ago
        In the best (and rarest) examples of SO, those comments percolate into the accepted answer as edits (and marked as such).
        aeorgnoieang 9y ago
        Ideally, those 'discussions' would be incorporated into an answer, if only a new answer. Even-more-ideally, a single (most-upvoted) answer would incorporate all of the info from other answers and subsequent comments. That, of course, doesn't happen that often. Every Wikipedia article has a talk page. But that doesn't mean that the purpose of the site is discussion. I think the same thing applies to SO.
        maxxxxx 9y ago
        If SO not for discussion is there a forum where you can discuss broad software architecture? Something with a spirit like HN where not everything is on topic but usually discussions are respectful and interesting.
        baud147258 9y ago
      - jpindar 9y ago
        Closed for using the D word! Stack Overflow is not for discussion! </SO mod>
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    I've had mixed results. 75% of the time I get good responses, 25% I get berated. I really, really try to form good, formatted questions though. But the site has been flooded by newbies and ESL people who just will not or cannot format and state their posts correctly. Or people that really shouldn't be programming in the first place, or at least--should learn how to use other documentation first. So there's a lot of chaff, in their defense.
- dionidium 9y ago
  This implies a clearer distinction between answer and opinion than exists in actual reality. There's a second assumption here, which is that there exists one ideal answer for each possible question, which is also wrong.
ythn 9y ago
I haven't found that to be the case if I do my due diligence. Even if I get down votes, people in the comments are generally helpful. I recently asked a question about int64_t -> double casting collisions, and even though I was initially downvoted because I didn't articulate my question well, after I demonstrated the problem with a few edits they magically turned into upvotes.
sgift 9y ago
It's the old problem that the people who are best at answering questions are not best at moderating. Two completely distinct skill sets that SO conflates, so they don't have to bother with either moderating it themselves (which would probably be impossible) or find a better working mechanism. It's the same problem Wikipedia has, which makes them loose new editors all the time.
zbentley 9y ago
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.
- clavalle 9y ago
  And that's great if you want a collection of uncontroversial answers to common questions. But if you want to go off the beaten track a bit it leads to problems. And any expert is going to ask questions off the beaten track. So...they are limiting SO to relatively inexperienced developers looking for answers to common questions. Considering that they make money by selling the talent that uses the site I'm not sure if it is wise to make that trade-off as rigidly as they do.
  - aeorgnoieang 9y ago
    This is a pretty good example of a probably pretty common phenomenon whereby different people have drastically different experiences about what's, nominally at least, 'the same thing'. I've definitely noticed what you described and I've spent some not-entirely-insignificant amount of time fighting it on the meta site. But I've also had a pretty nice experience with other portions (e.g. tags) of the site.

The Pedant Police make Stack Overflow very difficult to use.

booleandilemma 9y ago

I don’t think so. They try to keep it a question and answer site, not a question and opinion site.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I have tried to ask questions two times in the last few months and the responses were pretty much "if you don't know what you are doing you should hire an expert" or "why would would anyone do such a thing?". I definitely didn't feel very welcome and will stop posting there. It seems most questions that get answers are very simple and straightforward ones. Difficult stuff doesn't get discussed.
- baud147258 9y ago
  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?
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    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.
    - aw3c2 9y ago
      > discussing SO is not for discussion!
      - Someone1234 9y ago
        Until it is. Ironically most of the more helpful SO google results are helpful exactly because of the discussion/updates that took place in the comment chain under an answer from ten years earlier. > Guys how do I filter an array in JavaScript?! >> Use XYZ >>> XYZ works, but it doesn't work in IE5 >>>> If you're on IE10 or above you can use ABC instead of XYZ, it is cleaner! >>>>> Hey guys, change this {} to this {}, makes it faster on mobile!
        shagie 9y ago
        The indents there suggest a threaded discussion that looks more like a 1 on 1 chat or threaded discussion board. Wouldn’t one of those resources be a better place to hold such a discussion?
        sosborn 9y ago
        In the best (and rarest) examples of SO, those comments percolate into the accepted answer as edits (and marked as such).
        aeorgnoieang 9y ago
        Ideally, those 'discussions' would be incorporated into an answer, if only a new answer. Even-more-ideally, a single (most-upvoted) answer would incorporate all of the info from other answers and subsequent comments. That, of course, doesn't happen that often. Every Wikipedia article has a talk page. But that doesn't mean that the purpose of the site is discussion. I think the same thing applies to SO.
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        If SO not for discussion is there a forum where you can discuss broad software architecture? Something with a spirit like HN where not everything is on topic but usually discussions are respectful and interesting.
        baud147258 9y ago
    - jpindar 9y ago
      Closed for using the D word! Stack Overflow is not for discussion! </SO mod>
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  I've had mixed results. 75% of the time I get good responses, 25% I get berated. I really, really try to form good, formatted questions though. But the site has been flooded by newbies and ESL people who just will not or cannot format and state their posts correctly. Or people that really shouldn't be programming in the first place, or at least--should learn how to use other documentation first. So there's a lot of chaff, in their defense.
dionidium 9y ago
This implies a clearer distinction between answer and opinion than exists in actual reality. There's a second assumption here, which is that there exists one ideal answer for each possible question, which is also wrong.

ythn 9y ago

I haven't found that to be the case if I do my due diligence. Even if I get down votes, people in the comments are generally helpful. I recently asked a question about int64_t -> double casting collisions, and even though I was initially downvoted because I didn't articulate my question well, after I demonstrated the problem with a few edits they magically turned into upvotes.

sgift 9y ago

It's the old problem that the people who are best at answering questions are not best at moderating. Two completely distinct skill sets that SO conflates, so they don't have to bother with either moderating it themselves (which would probably be impossible) or find a better working mechanism. It's the same problem Wikipedia has, which makes them loose new editors all the time.

zbentley 9y ago

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.

clavalle 9y ago
And that's great if you want a collection of uncontroversial answers to common questions. But if you want to go off the beaten track a bit it leads to problems. And any expert is going to ask questions off the beaten track. So...they are limiting SO to relatively inexperienced developers looking for answers to common questions. Considering that they make money by selling the talent that uses the site I'm not sure if it is wise to make that trade-off as rigidly as they do.
- aeorgnoieang 9y ago
  This is a pretty good example of a probably pretty common phenomenon whereby different people have drastically different experiences about what's, nominally at least, 'the same thing'. I've definitely noticed what you described and I've spent some not-entirely-insignificant amount of time fighting it on the meta site. But I've also had a pretty nice experience with other portions (e.g. tags) of the site.