5 ms·

There's a substantial difference between the amount of time and guidance an individual can spend with a single question when you're on a site that gets 3.9k que

by shagie 4y ago

There's a substantial difference between the amount of time and guidance an individual can spend with a single question when you're on a site that gets 3.9k questions per day and one that gets 21 (stats from https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday https://stackexchange.com/sites#questionsperday )

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Thats a reason to not engage if you dont have time. It is not a reason to sit down and dismiss away questions or type out why you wont tell them.
- shagie 4y ago
  Today, most people who are doing curation of Stack Overflow are not engaging with a question at all. They down vote and move on as any attempt to help is seen as rude... and just down voting and moving on is also seen by some as rude... and not doing anything and having a question get ignored is also seen as rude or frustrating. As there are many fewer people answering questions compared to the rate of questions being asked the overall "is stack overflow rude or not" is a "yes." But engagement numbers are up as people keep asking them.
armchairhacker 4y ago
Stack Exchange itself is underrated, it's just that Stack Overflow is really bad.
- shagie 4y ago
  The moderation tools and expected community involvement in using them was built for a much smaller site with a more active user base... and it works reasonably. When you then add on top of it "engagement" metrics, scale up the number of questions per day by orders of magnitude without the corresponding scaling up of the community involvement and (to an extent) try to remove the ability for the community to moderate and curate the content then the tools that are left to the community are the social ones (as they can be used beyond the limited number of down, close, and delete votes that one has in a day). And then you're left with "the way to handle questions where the person didn't even put the title into Google to search first is to be rude to them." It's not a good thing, but without the barriers to entry being implemented in code they are erected by reputation and social forces instead. It isn't a good thing - and it would probably be much better if those barriers were put in place through some other means... but as long as engagement is the measured metric and ad impressions are the income, having company's developers implement it is a non-starter and you're left with the community using rudeness as the moderation tool of last resort. From A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27706413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27706413 ) > Four Things to Design For > ... > 3.) Three, you need some barriers to participation, however small. This is one of the things that killed Usenet, because there was almost no barrier to posting, leading to both generic system failures like spam, and also specific failures, like constant misogynist attacks in any group related to feminism, or racist attacks in any group related to African-Americans. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities. > ... > 4.) Finally, you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations. In conversational contexts, Metcalfe’s Law— the number of connections grows with the square of the number of nodes—is a drag. Since the number of potential two-way conversations in a group grows so much faster than the size of the group itself, the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales up even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the “less is more” pattern, in order to keep associated with one another.
interroboink 4y ago
Your phrasing makes it seem like the people answering have the job of "keep up with the rate of incoming of questions." So, if there are a lot of incoming questions, they must reduce quality of feedback, since they are spread thin. Personally, when I answer a question it's because I want to, and feel I can be helpful. I have no skin in the game with regard to the site's overall ability to keep up with incoming questions. So, I take as long as I need, and do as much hand-holding as I feel is appropriate, not governed by external pressure. But I suppose there are professional moderators and such who really do have that external pressure, and thus have incentive to give curt feedback, or even to drive people away — thus reducing that pressure, making their lives easier. As a SO user from the early days, I do miss that feeling of mostly interacting with people doing it "for the love of it," rather than governed by efficiency.
- shagie 4y ago
  The ability for you to find a good question to answer is in part based on the work that other people do in down voting and closing questions. If you go to the triage queue - those are questions that are being prevented from showing up. If you go through "newest questions" there are often questions there that can't be reasonably answered without more work to figure out what the problem is. As I write this, there's a question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76123197/is-it-possible-to-achieve-color-gradient-overlay-like-resso-app https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76123197/is-it-possible-... which is apparently a Java and Kotlin question > Is it possible to achieve Color gradient overlay like Resso app > It's really going to be interesting (big inline image) And... is that worth clicking answering in that form? How much time should you spend trying to make it a better question that someone else can answer? Or just down vote it and move on? Would you ask "how does this related to Java?" or "could you explain a bit more about what you've done so far and what problems you've encountered?" - and is that considered rude? The corresponding part of it is that people who have their question down voted without any information may find it rude. Or if someone suggests a change to the question... they may find that rude too. And some people find not getting a response at all to their question on a site that is billed as the place to get your questions answered rather frustrating. In order to make it easier for people who want to answer questions to find questions to answer a lot of questions don't show up. Poke at the triage review queue and consider the additional difficulty of finding a question to answer if those were also present in browsing. Note also that there are no professional moderators on SO. Everyone there is a volunteer... and thus they're burning out a bit too. While it may be easy to say "well, then they should take a break" - they do... and more questions of questionable quality show up in the feed. The best way to find good questions to answer is to look at recently asked the up voted questions (and avoid the down voted ones)... but down voting is considered to be rude. And if you want to help a question by asking a clarifying comment in there for this one that might be interesting... and that one... and that one... and do it for ten questions or so you've spent half an hour... and those comments trying to get some information about how you should answer are seen as rude. How much time do you want to spend asking clarifying questions in comments? Ultimately, SO is suffering from issues of scale without the corresponding tooling to enable people who are trying to answer to find interesting questions more easily. That's not an issue on smaller sites where you can read all of a day's questions over lunch.
eitland 4y ago
I have said it before I think, that I am sure Stack Overflow absolutely can, if they want to, reduce the amount of low quality questions they get. The problems Stack Overflow has seems to me to be very much self inflicted, caused by the decision to optimize for political games instead of optimizing for solving problems.
- shagie 4y ago
  "If they want to" runs into issues that as a company, they're measuring their success by engagement. Adding that barrier to participation would in turn drive down engagement and advertisement impressions. From the corporate standpoint, doing that (or anything like it) translates into a loss of revenue.
  - eitland 4y ago
    Maybe. Personally I think software engineers are a much more valuable audience than college kids. Also I think a lot of what happened was rampant deletionism, that I personally can't see any good reason for with todays storage prices.
    - shagie 4y ago
      The issue isn't the storage... but rather the difficulty of using a search to find a good question that has been answered. Do we need 10,000 questions about how to handle a NullPointerException in Java? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/linked/218384?lq=1 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/linked/218384?lq=1 If not, then it is probably appropriate to delete more of them and that may be seen as rude by people who have asked a question about a null pointer exception which gets deleted. We complain about how Google has gotten worse with search because its harder to find the content that we're after... and at the same time say that we want to keep all that content around on Stack Overflow which in turn makes it harder for people to use it as a "this is where you look to find an already answered question."
      - eitland 4y ago

by shagie 4y ago

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Thats a reason to not engage if you dont have time. It is not a reason to sit down and dismiss away questions or type out why you wont tell them.

shagie 4y ago
Today, most people who are doing curation of Stack Overflow are not engaging with a question at all. They down vote and move on as any attempt to help is seen as rude... and just down voting and moving on is also seen by some as rude... and not doing anything and having a question get ignored is also seen as rude or frustrating. As there are many fewer people answering questions compared to the rate of questions being asked the overall "is stack overflow rude or not" is a "yes." But engagement numbers are up as people keep asking them.

armchairhacker 4y ago

Stack Exchange itself is underrated, it's just that Stack Overflow is really bad.

shagie 4y ago
The moderation tools and expected community involvement in using them was built for a much smaller site with a more active user base... and it works reasonably. When you then add on top of it "engagement" metrics, scale up the number of questions per day by orders of magnitude without the corresponding scaling up of the community involvement and (to an extent) try to remove the ability for the community to moderate and curate the content then the tools that are left to the community are the social ones (as they can be used beyond the limited number of down, close, and delete votes that one has in a day). And then you're left with "the way to handle questions where the person didn't even put the title into Google to search first is to be rude to them." It's not a good thing, but without the barriers to entry being implemented in code they are erected by reputation and social forces instead. It isn't a good thing - and it would probably be much better if those barriers were put in place through some other means... but as long as engagement is the measured metric and ad impressions are the income, having company's developers implement it is a non-starter and you're left with the community using rudeness as the moderation tool of last resort. From A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27706413 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27706413 ) > Four Things to Design For > ... > 3.) Three, you need some barriers to participation, however small. This is one of the things that killed Usenet, because there was almost no barrier to posting, leading to both generic system failures like spam, and also specific failures, like constant misogynist attacks in any group related to feminism, or racist attacks in any group related to African-Americans. You have to have some cost to either join or participate, if not at the lowest level, then at higher levels. There needs to be some kind of segmentation of capabilities. > ... > 4.) Finally, you have to find a way to spare the group from scale. Scale alone kills conversations, because conversations require dense two-way conversations. In conversational contexts, Metcalfe’s Law— the number of connections grows with the square of the number of nodes—is a drag. Since the number of potential two-way conversations in a group grows so much faster than the size of the group itself, the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales up even a little bit. You have to have some way to let users hang onto the “less is more” pattern, in order to keep associated with one another.

interroboink 4y ago

Your phrasing makes it seem like the people answering have the job of "keep up with the rate of incoming of questions." So, if there are a lot of incoming questions, they must reduce quality of feedback, since they are spread thin. Personally, when I answer a question it's because I want to, and feel I can be helpful. I have no skin in the game with regard to the site's overall ability to keep up with incoming questions. So, I take as long as I need, and do as much hand-holding as I feel is appropriate, not governed by external pressure. But I suppose there are professional moderators and such who really do have that external pressure, and thus have incentive to give curt feedback, or even to drive people away — thus reducing that pressure, making their lives easier. As a SO user from the early days, I do miss that feeling of mostly interacting with people doing it "for the love of it," rather than governed by efficiency.

shagie 4y ago
The ability for you to find a good question to answer is in part based on the work that other people do in down voting and closing questions. If you go to the triage queue - those are questions that are being prevented from showing up. If you go through "newest questions" there are often questions there that can't be reasonably answered without more work to figure out what the problem is. As I write this, there's a question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76123197/is-it-possible-to-achieve-color-gradient-overlay-like-resso-app https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76123197/is-it-possible-... which is apparently a Java and Kotlin question > Is it possible to achieve Color gradient overlay like Resso app > It's really going to be interesting (big inline image) And... is that worth clicking answering in that form? How much time should you spend trying to make it a better question that someone else can answer? Or just down vote it and move on? Would you ask "how does this related to Java?" or "could you explain a bit more about what you've done so far and what problems you've encountered?" - and is that considered rude? The corresponding part of it is that people who have their question down voted without any information may find it rude. Or if someone suggests a change to the question... they may find that rude too. And some people find not getting a response at all to their question on a site that is billed as the place to get your questions answered rather frustrating. In order to make it easier for people who want to answer questions to find questions to answer a lot of questions don't show up. Poke at the triage review queue and consider the additional difficulty of finding a question to answer if those were also present in browsing. Note also that there are no professional moderators on SO. Everyone there is a volunteer... and thus they're burning out a bit too. While it may be easy to say "well, then they should take a break" - they do... and more questions of questionable quality show up in the feed. The best way to find good questions to answer is to look at recently asked the up voted questions (and avoid the down voted ones)... but down voting is considered to be rude. And if you want to help a question by asking a clarifying comment in there for this one that might be interesting... and that one... and that one... and do it for ten questions or so you've spent half an hour... and those comments trying to get some information about how you should answer are seen as rude. How much time do you want to spend asking clarifying questions in comments? Ultimately, SO is suffering from issues of scale without the corresponding tooling to enable people who are trying to answer to find interesting questions more easily. That's not an issue on smaller sites where you can read all of a day's questions over lunch.

eitland 4y ago

I have said it before I think, that I am sure Stack Overflow absolutely can, if they want to, reduce the amount of low quality questions they get. The problems Stack Overflow has seems to me to be very much self inflicted, caused by the decision to optimize for political games instead of optimizing for solving problems.

shagie 4y ago
"If they want to" runs into issues that as a company, they're measuring their success by engagement. Adding that barrier to participation would in turn drive down engagement and advertisement impressions. From the corporate standpoint, doing that (or anything like it) translates into a loss of revenue.
- eitland 4y ago
  Maybe. Personally I think software engineers are a much more valuable audience than college kids. Also I think a lot of what happened was rampant deletionism, that I personally can't see any good reason for with todays storage prices.
  - shagie 4y ago
    The issue isn't the storage... but rather the difficulty of using a search to find a good question that has been answered. Do we need 10,000 questions about how to handle a NullPointerException in Java? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/linked/218384?lq=1 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/linked/218384?lq=1 If not, then it is probably appropriate to delete more of them and that may be seen as rude by people who have asked a question about a null pointer exception which gets deleted. We complain about how Google has gotten worse with search because its harder to find the content that we're after... and at the same time say that we want to keep all that content around on Stack Overflow which in turn makes it harder for people to use it as a "this is where you look to find an already answered question."
    - eitland 4y ago