4 ms·

I've read that, but I disagree. Stack Overflow would be better for the community if it allowed repetition. Repetition isn't harmful, and it lets the next genera

I've read that, but I disagree. Stack Overflow would be better for the community if it allowed repetition. Repetition isn't harmful, and it lets the next generation learn how to answer questions, which is a legitimately hard skill, and I'm arguing is more useful than creating a static repository of documentation.

jasode 2y ago
>would be better for the community if it allowed repetition. Repetition isn't harmful, The "community" also includes the people who volunteer to answer the questions. The answerers don't want repetition. Jeff Atwood wanted to prioritize the SO experience for the answerers. To paraphrase JA's reasoning: - asking questions is easy which can lead to an increasing volume of bad questions that degrades the site for the answerers - answering questions is hard and more valuable for StackOverflow so optimize the site for them. (JA wrote, ">We feel that the world is awash in questions, but not answers. Answers are the real unit of work in any Q&A; system. Therefore, the only logical thing to do is to maximize the happiness and enjoyment of answerers."[1]) I do understand how you would want SO to work differently and I'm not debating your opinion. I'm just relaying how the cofounders wanted StackOverflow to work. [1] https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/#:~:text=We%20feel%20that%20the%20world%20is%20awash%20in%20questions%2C%20but%20not%20answers.%20Answers%20are%20the%20real%20unit%20of%20work%20in%20any%20Q%26A%3B%20system.%20Therefore%2C%20the%20only%20logical%20thing%20to%20do%20is%20to%20maximize%20the%20happiness%20and%20enjoyment%20of%20answerers https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-....
- DowagerDave 2y ago
  Also note that all products, especially successful ones, change (anyone used Excel lately?) and the cofounders are all long gone. They built something that was temporally valuable, (rightfully) cashed in and moved on.
- Mathnerd314 2y ago
  > answering questions is hard I think this assumption is not true anymore - ChatGPT can give an answer in less time and (human) effort than it takes to formulate and devise a question. So it really is about creating a set of curated question-answer pairs, where both the questions and the answers can be auto-generated. In this context, asking the same question different ways is really helpful to an AI. And there is no such thing as a bad question, there are just Q-A pairs that do not contribute significantly to training the model ("boring" questions). I've noticed Quora is experimenting with ChatGPT but they aren't at the point where you can flag the AI's answer as incorrect or misleading and fix it.
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    > chatgpt can give an answer in less time and (human) effort than it takes to formulate and devise a question. Can it? I mean, you still have to spend the time and effort required in order to ensure that ChatGPT's answer is correct and complete.
    - Mathnerd314 2y ago
      Well, the question-asker should be able to tell if ChatGPT's answer is incorrect. Most obviously, for software, they try it and it doesn't work, or for scientific questions, they look up the references and they don't exist. It is probably even possible to automate such checking to some extent. But similar issues apply to checking human answers - at some point, the answer is correct because it sounds plausible, not because it has been verified.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        If people are posting answers that they don't know are correct, putting the burden on the asker to do that vetting, then the entire point of the site is moot.
        Mathnerd314 2y ago
        News flash, but a lot of stackoverflow answers are garbage - incorrect, out of date, etc.. Does this make it useless? No, you just have to sift through.
- gravescale 2y ago
  > - asking questions is easy No, asking bad or thoughtless questions is easy. Asking a good question, complete with "this is what I've tried" and snippets and links to all revelant resources like API documentation, CodePens/Godbolts/standards and a summary of your thinking that has led to needing an answer in the first place is very hard. A good question is probably at least an hour's work, and there are very few easy questions left that don't need substantial work even to frame. An answer can be very in-depth with research and analysis, which also takes a long time, but it can also be anywhere on the spectrum down to fairly straightforward "you missed a function call" answer. On the other hand, writing a good question sometimes solves your problem half way through when your Minimal Viable Example suddenly starts working and your realise the flaw, or the rubber-duck nature makes you think it through in a new way.
Joker_vD 2y ago
Repetition is harmful. I've seen it play out on many expert forums (including an M:tG forum with several Level 2 Judges): sooner or later, depending on the person's stress-resistance, but always, they get too tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over again. And manifestations of that phenomenon aren't pretty: they either leave the forum entirely, or turn quite acidic in their tone. In either case, their usefulness as the anwererers becomes quite low.
- Thrymr 2y ago
  Repetition is harmful, stale answers are harmful, growing the results forever is harmful, searching for good old answers that are still valid is difficult, prioritizing newer answers means that the good old ones are harder to find, etc., etc., etc. Every forum, wiki, and growing documentation base eventually stagnates, overflows, or dies some other way. Wikipedia is one exception that mostly stays up-to-date.
- jjk166 2y ago
  What if people just don't answer the same questions over and over? Old answers can be linked, but the whole point of allowing repetition is to get fresh answers, ideally from new people. People going insane repeating themselves is a separate issue that can be solved in much better ways than prohibiting duplicate questions.
arp242 2y ago
Serious question: how many answers have you posted on Stack Overflow? Because people standing from the sidelines telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my spare time leaves more than a little bad taste in my mouth.
- lifefeed 2y ago
  Asked a few, answered a few, same as most people I suppose.
  - arp242 2y ago
    So basically you have no experience what it's like to be answering questions? Most answers come from a fairly dedicated group of people who check the site most days, not from the occasional strays. I'm not saying that people answering questions are always right or always have the final say, but it's easy to have strong opinions on what's "better for the community" if you're not the one doing the legwork or have to deal with the fallout from that. I certainly would never be saying that sort of stuff unless I had put in the work. My balls just aren't big enough I guess.

jasode 2y ago

>would be better for the community if it allowed repetition. Repetition isn't harmful, The "community" also includes the people who volunteer to answer the questions. The answerers don't want repetition. Jeff Atwood wanted to prioritize the SO experience for the answerers. To paraphrase JA's reasoning: - asking questions is easy which can lead to an increasing volume of bad questions that degrades the site for the answerers - answering questions is hard and more valuable for StackOverflow so optimize the site for them. (JA wrote, ">We feel that the world is awash in questions, but not answers. Answers are the real unit of work in any Q&A; system. Therefore, the only logical thing to do is to maximize the happiness and enjoyment of answerers."[1]) I do understand how you would want SO to work differently and I'm not debating your opinion. I'm just relaying how the cofounders wanted StackOverflow to work. [1] https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-not-sand/#:~:text=We%20feel%20that%20the%20world%20is%20awash%20in%20questions%2C%20but%20not%20answers.%20Answers%20are%20the%20real%20unit%20of%20work%20in%20any%20Q%26A%3B%20system.%20Therefore%2C%20the%20only%20logical%20thing%20to%20do%20is%20to%20maximize%20the%20happiness%20and%20enjoyment%20of%20answerers https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-....

DowagerDave 2y ago
Also note that all products, especially successful ones, change (anyone used Excel lately?) and the cofounders are all long gone. They built something that was temporally valuable, (rightfully) cashed in and moved on.
Mathnerd314 2y ago
> answering questions is hard I think this assumption is not true anymore - ChatGPT can give an answer in less time and (human) effort than it takes to formulate and devise a question. So it really is about creating a set of curated question-answer pairs, where both the questions and the answers can be auto-generated. In this context, asking the same question different ways is really helpful to an AI. And there is no such thing as a bad question, there are just Q-A pairs that do not contribute significantly to training the model ("boring" questions). I've noticed Quora is experimenting with ChatGPT but they aren't at the point where you can flag the AI's answer as incorrect or misleading and fix it.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > chatgpt can give an answer in less time and (human) effort than it takes to formulate and devise a question. Can it? I mean, you still have to spend the time and effort required in order to ensure that ChatGPT's answer is correct and complete.
  - Mathnerd314 2y ago
    Well, the question-asker should be able to tell if ChatGPT's answer is incorrect. Most obviously, for software, they try it and it doesn't work, or for scientific questions, they look up the references and they don't exist. It is probably even possible to automate such checking to some extent. But similar issues apply to checking human answers - at some point, the answer is correct because it sounds plausible, not because it has been verified.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      If people are posting answers that they don't know are correct, putting the burden on the asker to do that vetting, then the entire point of the site is moot.
      - Mathnerd314 2y ago
        News flash, but a lot of stackoverflow answers are garbage - incorrect, out of date, etc.. Does this make it useless? No, you just have to sift through.
gravescale 2y ago
> - asking questions is easy No, asking bad or thoughtless questions is easy. Asking a good question, complete with "this is what I've tried" and snippets and links to all revelant resources like API documentation, CodePens/Godbolts/standards and a summary of your thinking that has led to needing an answer in the first place is very hard. A good question is probably at least an hour's work, and there are very few easy questions left that don't need substantial work even to frame. An answer can be very in-depth with research and analysis, which also takes a long time, but it can also be anywhere on the spectrum down to fairly straightforward "you missed a function call" answer. On the other hand, writing a good question sometimes solves your problem half way through when your Minimal Viable Example suddenly starts working and your realise the flaw, or the rubber-duck nature makes you think it through in a new way.

Joker_vD 2y ago

Repetition is harmful. I've seen it play out on many expert forums (including an M:tG forum with several Level 2 Judges): sooner or later, depending on the person's stress-resistance, but always, they get too tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and over again. And manifestations of that phenomenon aren't pretty: they either leave the forum entirely, or turn quite acidic in their tone. In either case, their usefulness as the anwererers becomes quite low.

Thrymr 2y ago
Repetition is harmful, stale answers are harmful, growing the results forever is harmful, searching for good old answers that are still valid is difficult, prioritizing newer answers means that the good old ones are harder to find, etc., etc., etc. Every forum, wiki, and growing documentation base eventually stagnates, overflows, or dies some other way. Wikipedia is one exception that mostly stays up-to-date.
jjk166 2y ago
What if people just don't answer the same questions over and over? Old answers can be linked, but the whole point of allowing repetition is to get fresh answers, ideally from new people. People going insane repeating themselves is a separate issue that can be solved in much better ways than prohibiting duplicate questions.

arp242 2y ago

Serious question: how many answers have you posted on Stack Overflow? Because people standing from the sidelines telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my spare time leaves more than a little bad taste in my mouth.

lifefeed 2y ago
Asked a few, answered a few, same as most people I suppose.
- arp242 2y ago
  So basically you have no experience what it's like to be answering questions? Most answers come from a fairly dedicated group of people who check the site most days, not from the occasional strays. I'm not saying that people answering questions are always right or always have the final say, but it's easy to have strong opinions on what's "better for the community" if you're not the one doing the legwork or have to deal with the fallout from that. I certainly would never be saying that sort of stuff unless I had put in the work. My balls just aren't big enough I guess.