3 ms·

I think that's unfair, just because you may have some axe to grind with Reddit doesn't mean that it's not a good source of information and discussion. SO works

by k3n 14y ago

I think that's unfair, just because you may have some axe to grind with Reddit doesn't mean that it's not a good source of information and discussion. SO works great for some formats, but as a discussion board, it sucks. The question that was posed had no clear answer, we could all wax poetic on the pathology and prognosis and cure of the OP's problem, but there's only 1 big green checkmark to go around -- and when it's been doled out, there's no going back. Essentially, every answer to the OP's question in that thread is an opinion and, by definition, is impossible to accurately score.

bunderbunder 14y ago
You're right, as a discussion board it does suck. But as a place to ask advice from other experts and get a feel for how they're inclined to think about the issue, it's absolutely fantastic. And the reason why it's such a great platform for that kind of thing is that the interface goes to such great lengths to discourage drawn-out discussion. By making it hard for argumentative people to dominate the topic, it makes it possible to get a feel for what everyone's really thinking in a way that, to my knowledge, is unprecedented. It's true that there is one little detail, the green checkbox, that isn't a good match for this use case. At least not if you think of it as a way to pick the one Objectively True[tm] answer. But to think of it that way is absurd. Even with concrete programming issues there's often more than one way to do it, and everyone knows that in those cases and many others the green checkbox really just indicates which option the question asker liked best. And beyond that, it's just plain wrongheaded to suggest that there shouldn't be room for opinion at a place like SE. It's tantamount to saying that there's no room for discussing the difficult, nebulous problems that real professionals have to deal with on a daily basis, and that the site's really only intended for helping people with the one case in which we can always expect a single objective answer: Homework help.
- k3n 14y ago
  But for "this sort of question", is Reddit really that bad for it? I agree that Reddit is a terrible platform for general Q&A content (like SO/SE currently host), but I think it's terrific for subjective content that may include many diverse opinions which might lead to many back-and-forth, threaded discussions which SO basically refuses to support (you can post a tweet-sized comment, but that's about it). I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't discuss bigger-picture ideas, but I just think that sites that were built to function more like discussion boards are better suited for such topics vs. sites that were created with the sole intention of discovering a single, "correct" answer to every question.
wpietri 14y ago
You weight the intent system too highly and ignore the effect on the reader. SO's interface worked pretty well for opinion. Who cares if it's impossible to accurately score? The most useful stuff generally ended up near the top, so readers could quickly find a lot of good material. As to the green checkmark, a querent isn't obligated to select a best answer. And if they selected one, so what? It pushed one answer up, but readers were perfectly capable of reading down. SO's behavior with opinion is a classic case of founders saying "B-b-b-b-ut they're doing it wrong". Which is backwards. The purpose of a discussion system is to serve its users, not its programmers. This is exactly the same sort of idiocy that killed Friendster: https://plus.google.com/116014836340643816850/posts/WFH5eDugAb3 https://plus.google.com/116014836340643816850/posts/WFH5eDug...
- k3n 14y ago
  They even state when you go to ask a question: > We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed. And to me (and this is of course just my interpretation), but that means that questions that can only yield subjective answers aren't really meant to be asked there. Additionally, the FAQ[1] goes into even more detail that I think supports both my and SE's stance; the question ITT is, to me, clearly more under the "and it is not about..." section of the FAQ than it is under the top section. They even plug another of their sites, The Workplace[2], as being a better fit for "general workplace issues, office politics, résumé help". Point being, the question the OP asked here has absolutely nothing to do with programming, and thus doesn't have any place on a site that deals exclusively with programming. 1. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/faq http://programmers.stackexchange.com/faq 2. http://workplace.stackexchange.com/ http://workplace.stackexchange.com/
  - wpietri 14y ago
    It absolutely has something to do with programming. The economics of programming make behavior like this deeply foolish. In other circumstances it can be reasonable. And some of the ways of solving the problem are software specific. But that doesn't really matter. You cite the rules as the authority for what should be there. I agree that the users and the rule-writers have different ideas about what the site should be. I'm saying the rule-writers are wrong, just like the Friendster rule-writers were wrong.

by k3n 14y ago

bunderbunder 14y ago

You're right, as a discussion board it does suck. But as a place to ask advice from other experts and get a feel for how they're inclined to think about the issue, it's absolutely fantastic. And the reason why it's such a great platform for that kind of thing is that the interface goes to such great lengths to discourage drawn-out discussion. By making it hard for argumentative people to dominate the topic, it makes it possible to get a feel for what everyone's really thinking in a way that, to my knowledge, is unprecedented. It's true that there is one little detail, the green checkbox, that isn't a good match for this use case. At least not if you think of it as a way to pick the one Objectively True[tm] answer. But to think of it that way is absurd. Even with concrete programming issues there's often more than one way to do it, and everyone knows that in those cases and many others the green checkbox really just indicates which option the question asker liked best. And beyond that, it's just plain wrongheaded to suggest that there shouldn't be room for opinion at a place like SE. It's tantamount to saying that there's no room for discussing the difficult, nebulous problems that real professionals have to deal with on a daily basis, and that the site's really only intended for helping people with the one case in which we can always expect a single objective answer: Homework help.

k3n 14y ago
But for "this sort of question", is Reddit really that bad for it? I agree that Reddit is a terrible platform for general Q&A content (like SO/SE currently host), but I think it's terrific for subjective content that may include many diverse opinions which might lead to many back-and-forth, threaded discussions which SO basically refuses to support (you can post a tweet-sized comment, but that's about it). I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't discuss bigger-picture ideas, but I just think that sites that were built to function more like discussion boards are better suited for such topics vs. sites that were created with the sole intention of discovering a single, "correct" answer to every question.

wpietri 14y ago

You weight the intent system too highly and ignore the effect on the reader. SO's interface worked pretty well for opinion. Who cares if it's impossible to accurately score? The most useful stuff generally ended up near the top, so readers could quickly find a lot of good material. As to the green checkmark, a querent isn't obligated to select a best answer. And if they selected one, so what? It pushed one answer up, but readers were perfectly capable of reading down. SO's behavior with opinion is a classic case of founders saying "B-b-b-b-ut they're doing it wrong". Which is backwards. The purpose of a discussion system is to serve its users, not its programmers. This is exactly the same sort of idiocy that killed Friendster: https://plus.google.com/116014836340643816850/posts/WFH5eDugAb3 https://plus.google.com/116014836340643816850/posts/WFH5eDug...

k3n 14y ago
They even state when you go to ask a question: > We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed. And to me (and this is of course just my interpretation), but that means that questions that can only yield subjective answers aren't really meant to be asked there. Additionally, the FAQ[1] goes into even more detail that I think supports both my and SE's stance; the question ITT is, to me, clearly more under the "and it is not about..." section of the FAQ than it is under the top section. They even plug another of their sites, The Workplace[2], as being a better fit for "general workplace issues, office politics, résumé help". Point being, the question the OP asked here has absolutely nothing to do with programming, and thus doesn't have any place on a site that deals exclusively with programming. 1. http://programmers.stackexchange.com/faq http://programmers.stackexchange.com/faq 2. http://workplace.stackexchange.com/ http://workplace.stackexchange.com/
- wpietri 14y ago
  It absolutely has something to do with programming. The economics of programming make behavior like this deeply foolish. In other circumstances it can be reasonable. And some of the ways of solving the problem are software specific. But that doesn't really matter. You cite the rules as the authority for what should be there. I agree that the users and the rule-writers have different ideas about what the site should be. I'm saying the rule-writers are wrong, just like the Friendster rule-writers were wrong.