4 ms·

>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 que

by jasode 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
gravescale 3y 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.

by jasode 3y ago

DowagerDave 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

gravescale 3y 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.