4 ms·

I don't get your complaint. You posted a trivial question you knew the answer to, and then posted your trivial solution, at which point you were told that it w

I don't get your complaint. You posted a trivial question you knew the answer to, and then posted your trivial solution, at which point you were told that it was preferred if people asked genuine questions they didn't know the answer to. If anything, people knocked you for not providing enough substance-- and I don't see anything "social" about the interaction at all. There's a lot of things wrong with StackOverflow-- but you're not offering much of a critique.

JabavuAdams 16y ago
What's trivial to one is not trivial to all. The reason I posted the question (and answer) is that I saw someone else was confused about these operators in a different Stack Overflow question. The "social" complaint was because the first commenter down-voted me because he though I was trying to get a badge, not because he thought there was something incorrect about the information (maybe he just didn't say so explicitly). A lot of people coming to Lisp are new, and need small little code snippets. Although my answer may seem trivial, it had a few carefully-thought-out properties: 1) A very specific title. 2) A specific answer, with alternatives, and references to the language spec. Many Lisp newbs won't know to go to the Hyperspec. So, maybe I just posted this in the wrong place. What is the right place for standard techniques or snippets that can improve the code-quality of a cut-and-paste beginner?
- rada 16y ago
  I think it's trivial to exactly 100% of people that "Ask A Question" means "Ask A Question" and not "Cut-and-paste standard techniques or snippets that can improve the code-quality of a cut-and-paste beginner".
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  The reason I posted the question (and answer) is that I saw someone else was confused about these operators in a different Stack Overflow question. Then that was the right place to post your answer. It's generally considered a good idea to lurk a little while in an online community, to see the local standards. If you had done so, you'd have seen that people don't post "standard techinques or code snippets" to StackOverflow-- they ask questions they don't know the answer to, and try to answer other's questions. If you want to help folks on SO with Lisp, you can try to answer some of the genuine questions that have been asked.
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    It's generally considered a good idea to lurk a little while in an online community, to see the local standards. True. I did check the FAQ, at least, and concluded that this was a legitimate post. I think there's an unanswered need, here. It's a problem of search. You want the first search result in google to be a small, rock-solid code snippet. Small, because small is simple, and small can be perfect. Longer code samples introduce too many degrees of freedom. Small samples can be unambiguously correct (for a specific purpose). This doesn't mean they're trivial. Anyhoo. If this isn't what Stack Overflow is, someone should make it...
- STHayden 16y ago
  I agree with you. You saw a question that should have been asked but wasn't. You phased the question in a specific way to give a specific answer. It does not make sense to bury this information in tons of other posts that would not come up in a google search when searching for this problem. I don't get the nontrivial argument. Is everything in the documentation nontrivial? Where is the ideal place for a user looking for the answer to this question?
- xenoterracide 16y ago
  I think even if you thought the question should have been asked... you should have waited a day (or longer) and given someone else a chance to answer the question. Then you could have accepted their answer, or written your own if it wasn't good enough. It does very much look like badge/rep whoring.
  - JabavuAdams 16y ago
    I can see that, but doesn't that point out an interesting flaw in this social site achievement model? Specifically: 1) There is a question that is trivial to some, but non-trivial to others. 2) I have a carefully-crafted answer to that question (trivial though it may be to some). 3) I need to wait to provide my careful answer, because if I do it too soon, I'll be seen as self-serving. This is inefficient! Storage is cheap, so what does it matter to anyone if there is a concise, correct answer that they find trivial? If something is not useful to me, but useful to others, it doesn't harm me ... ... unless it adds noise to the signal, i.e. corrupts search terms. However, I explicitly chose to improve the search terms w.r.t. this topic. This is very interesting for me...
    - xenoterracide 16y ago
      It's really more that it seems to be self serving, because you weren't really asking a real question. The StackExchange model isn't really a Wiki, or a blog, or whatever. If you want to write user friendly documentation there are lots of ways to outlet that. SE is about people who have real problems that are really searching for some help, IMO, or maybe the just want to learn something they didn't know about (e.g. what's your favorite editor might get answers that included editor's and reasons you'd never heard of). I do think this adds noise to signal, because what people who answer questions are there for is to help people who need it. You didn't, and thus it seems more self serving.
      - JabavuAdams 16y ago
        I do think this adds noise to signal, because what people who answer questions are there for is to help people who need it. You didn't, and thus it seems more self serving. This is interesting. When I said it didn't add noise, I was specifically thinking of question-askers. I didn't consider question answerers. On the other hand, with a very specific title, people who are just browsing should be able to make a snap decision about whether to read further. Also, it takes much more effort to compose a good answer, than to quickly validate an existing answer. Consider, that once an answer is there, it's there for all time. We don't know how many people searched for this in the past, but gave up due to poor results. We don't know how many people this will help in the future. Why wait until they ask the question? When I was learning Lisp, I just used "(+ foo 1)" to increment a number. It was a while before I realized that I could just "(incf foo)". So, in that sense it's a genuine question on my part, just time-delayed from a past self. Part of good teaching is anticipating what questions will be asked, and answering them before-hand. What bugs me here is that I've created something. I've organized information -- decreased entropy in the universe. I did all that, but now other people want to bury that information that took energy to create, and that could be useful for all future time. I'm perfectly okay with someone saying: "this is trivial to me". What I don't like is that someone can say: "this is universally trivial, for all users", let's bury it. Corrupting search terms can be seen as adding entropy, while improving the likelihood that information will be found is a public service. Picking good search terms is key to the long-term survival of an idea.
Amanjeev 16y ago
'Social over substance' here most likely means that people on Stackoverflow, esp the ones who have reps in thousands tend to treat simple questions (also fundamental ones) as 'not enough in substance'. Which I think is wrong. Substance is knowledge and transfer of that, not who can ask a star-studded question. SO has a badge which says excellent question and I think those with awesome reps (who generally are ace in their fields) tend to feel bad about such 'naive' (according to them) questions.

JabavuAdams 16y ago

What's trivial to one is not trivial to all. The reason I posted the question (and answer) is that I saw someone else was confused about these operators in a different Stack Overflow question. The "social" complaint was because the first commenter down-voted me because he though I was trying to get a badge, not because he thought there was something incorrect about the information (maybe he just didn't say so explicitly). A lot of people coming to Lisp are new, and need small little code snippets. Although my answer may seem trivial, it had a few carefully-thought-out properties: 1) A very specific title. 2) A specific answer, with alternatives, and references to the language spec. Many Lisp newbs won't know to go to the Hyperspec. So, maybe I just posted this in the wrong place. What is the right place for standard techniques or snippets that can improve the code-quality of a cut-and-paste beginner?

rada 16y ago
I think it's trivial to exactly 100% of people that "Ask A Question" means "Ask A Question" and not "Cut-and-paste standard techniques or snippets that can improve the code-quality of a cut-and-paste beginner".
michael_dorfman 16y ago
The reason I posted the question (and answer) is that I saw someone else was confused about these operators in a different Stack Overflow question. Then that was the right place to post your answer. It's generally considered a good idea to lurk a little while in an online community, to see the local standards. If you had done so, you'd have seen that people don't post "standard techinques or code snippets" to StackOverflow-- they ask questions they don't know the answer to, and try to answer other's questions. If you want to help folks on SO with Lisp, you can try to answer some of the genuine questions that have been asked.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  It's generally considered a good idea to lurk a little while in an online community, to see the local standards. True. I did check the FAQ, at least, and concluded that this was a legitimate post. I think there's an unanswered need, here. It's a problem of search. You want the first search result in google to be a small, rock-solid code snippet. Small, because small is simple, and small can be perfect. Longer code samples introduce too many degrees of freedom. Small samples can be unambiguously correct (for a specific purpose). This doesn't mean they're trivial. Anyhoo. If this isn't what Stack Overflow is, someone should make it...
STHayden 16y ago
I agree with you. You saw a question that should have been asked but wasn't. You phased the question in a specific way to give a specific answer. It does not make sense to bury this information in tons of other posts that would not come up in a google search when searching for this problem. I don't get the nontrivial argument. Is everything in the documentation nontrivial? Where is the ideal place for a user looking for the answer to this question?
xenoterracide 16y ago
I think even if you thought the question should have been asked... you should have waited a day (or longer) and given someone else a chance to answer the question. Then you could have accepted their answer, or written your own if it wasn't good enough. It does very much look like badge/rep whoring.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  I can see that, but doesn't that point out an interesting flaw in this social site achievement model? Specifically: 1) There is a question that is trivial to some, but non-trivial to others. 2) I have a carefully-crafted answer to that question (trivial though it may be to some). 3) I need to wait to provide my careful answer, because if I do it too soon, I'll be seen as self-serving. This is inefficient! Storage is cheap, so what does it matter to anyone if there is a concise, correct answer that they find trivial? If something is not useful to me, but useful to others, it doesn't harm me ... ... unless it adds noise to the signal, i.e. corrupts search terms. However, I explicitly chose to improve the search terms w.r.t. this topic. This is very interesting for me...
  - xenoterracide 16y ago
    It's really more that it seems to be self serving, because you weren't really asking a real question. The StackExchange model isn't really a Wiki, or a blog, or whatever. If you want to write user friendly documentation there are lots of ways to outlet that. SE is about people who have real problems that are really searching for some help, IMO, or maybe the just want to learn something they didn't know about (e.g. what's your favorite editor might get answers that included editor's and reasons you'd never heard of). I do think this adds noise to signal, because what people who answer questions are there for is to help people who need it. You didn't, and thus it seems more self serving.
    - JabavuAdams 16y ago
      I do think this adds noise to signal, because what people who answer questions are there for is to help people who need it. You didn't, and thus it seems more self serving. This is interesting. When I said it didn't add noise, I was specifically thinking of question-askers. I didn't consider question answerers. On the other hand, with a very specific title, people who are just browsing should be able to make a snap decision about whether to read further. Also, it takes much more effort to compose a good answer, than to quickly validate an existing answer. Consider, that once an answer is there, it's there for all time. We don't know how many people searched for this in the past, but gave up due to poor results. We don't know how many people this will help in the future. Why wait until they ask the question? When I was learning Lisp, I just used "(+ foo 1)" to increment a number. It was a while before I realized that I could just "(incf foo)". So, in that sense it's a genuine question on my part, just time-delayed from a past self. Part of good teaching is anticipating what questions will be asked, and answering them before-hand. What bugs me here is that I've created something. I've organized information -- decreased entropy in the universe. I did all that, but now other people want to bury that information that took energy to create, and that could be useful for all future time. I'm perfectly okay with someone saying: "this is trivial to me". What I don't like is that someone can say: "this is universally trivial, for all users", let's bury it. Corrupting search terms can be seen as adding entropy, while improving the likelihood that information will be found is a public service. Picking good search terms is key to the long-term survival of an idea.

Amanjeev 16y ago

'Social over substance' here most likely means that people on Stackoverflow, esp the ones who have reps in thousands tend to treat simple questions (also fundamental ones) as 'not enough in substance'. Which I think is wrong. Substance is knowledge and transfer of that, not who can ask a star-studded question. SO has a badge which says excellent question and I think those with awesome reps (who generally are ace in their fields) tend to feel bad about such 'naive' (according to them) questions.