3 ms·

The goal of Stack Overflow is to produce posts that are useful for others who stumble across them. There's every reason to be friendly to newbies, but not much

The goal of Stack Overflow is to produce posts that are useful for others who stumble across them. There's every reason to be friendly to newbies, but not much reason to answer questions that will never be of use to anyone else. Stack Overflow isn't a free tutoring service, it's a collaborative wiki of answers to common programming questions. That being said, I agree that the current culture of "you're doing it wrong" is toxic, and should be replaced with a culture of "here's how to do it right".

chefandy 8y ago
And so very often as a beginner, I stumbled across someone's question that I also had, which was somehow deemed unacceptable by the bureaucracy so there were no useful answers, there was no link to where the 'correct' question with the correct answer was, and because there was often different exception, or a different library was being used, or something along those lines, I didn't have the skills to find it. So, maybe it's time to abandon that strategy and concentrate on actually helping people who need it.
enraged_camel 8y ago
>>The goal of Stack Overflow is to produce posts that are useful for others who stumble across them. That's one of the goals. I wouldn't say it's the goal. I would argue that the goal of any software should be to help the immediate user. If it is not, then why should the user continue using it? Stackoverflow is successful because helping the immediate user has secondary benefits, namely that it also helps others. But that doesn't mean this secondary benefit should override the primary goal.
- umvi 8y ago
  > I would argue that the goal of any software should be to help the immediate user. If it is not, then why should the user continue using it? That's like saying "I as the immediate user of Wikipedia want to be able to upload my research paper and have it check if there are any mistakes in my citations. If Wikipedia can't serve that immediate need, why should I continue using it?" Yet even if Wikipedia isn't good at auto-checking your homework, it's still immensely useful for the vast majority of other users who don't care about auto-checking homework. You can't build software that satisfies everyone's requirements. It's okay if some users choose not to use your software because it doesn't fulfill their requirements.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Your example has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's primary (i.e. immediate) users are the readers who consume the materials. StackOverflow is a Q&A site. Asking questions and receiving useful answers is the primary goal, and therefore the immediate users are the askers.
    - umvi 8y ago
      You might think that, but it is my opinion that the immediate users of SO are the readers, not the askers. The askers are but a small minority of SO's users. It's the readers coming into SO from Google that are the primary audience. Therefore, the site should seek to serve them. Ultra specific homework questions do not help the immediate users (readers) at all which is why it is frowned upon.

chefandy 8y ago

And so very often as a beginner, I stumbled across someone's question that I also had, which was somehow deemed unacceptable by the bureaucracy so there were no useful answers, there was no link to where the 'correct' question with the correct answer was, and because there was often different exception, or a different library was being used, or something along those lines, I didn't have the skills to find it. So, maybe it's time to abandon that strategy and concentrate on actually helping people who need it.

enraged_camel 8y ago

>>The goal of Stack Overflow is to produce posts that are useful for others who stumble across them. That's one of the goals. I wouldn't say it's the goal. I would argue that the goal of any software should be to help the immediate user. If it is not, then why should the user continue using it? Stackoverflow is successful because helping the immediate user has secondary benefits, namely that it also helps others. But that doesn't mean this secondary benefit should override the primary goal.

umvi 8y ago
> I would argue that the goal of any software should be to help the immediate user. If it is not, then why should the user continue using it? That's like saying "I as the immediate user of Wikipedia want to be able to upload my research paper and have it check if there are any mistakes in my citations. If Wikipedia can't serve that immediate need, why should I continue using it?" Yet even if Wikipedia isn't good at auto-checking your homework, it's still immensely useful for the vast majority of other users who don't care about auto-checking homework. You can't build software that satisfies everyone's requirements. It's okay if some users choose not to use your software because it doesn't fulfill their requirements.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Your example has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it's primary (i.e. immediate) users are the readers who consume the materials. StackOverflow is a Q&A site. Asking questions and receiving useful answers is the primary goal, and therefore the immediate users are the askers.
  - umvi 8y ago
    You might think that, but it is my opinion that the immediate users of SO are the readers, not the askers. The askers are but a small minority of SO's users. It's the readers coming into SO from Google that are the primary audience. Therefore, the site should seek to serve them. Ultra specific homework questions do not help the immediate users (readers) at all which is why it is frowned upon.