4 ms·
So interesting that this post is about putting incentives in the right place. I distinctly remember the number one fantastic thing about StackOverflow in the b
by jonwinstanley 10mo ago
So interesting that this post is about putting incentives in the right place.
I distinctly remember the number one fantastic thing about StackOverflow in the beginning was that their incentives were so much better than all the alternatives.
The way SO gave you points for answering questions and gave you more for being the best answer etc etc meant the answers you got there were so much better than anywhere else. This is why the site grew so rapidly and so quickly became the best place to get a great answer.
- listenallyall 10mo agoIn the short-term, absolutely. Problem is that the points are permanent- so the first person to answer a question, based on the current standards in 2008 or whatever, got hundreds or thousands of points and that answer is still at the top despite multiple revisions and better options introduced later. For example jquery to JS to ES6. All SO points should slowly degrade, if an answer is still the best 15 years later it will continue to be upvoted but if newer, better solutions come along, the original solution will eventually fall in karma points and the newer, better solution will overtake it. That's how the site should have been designed, IMO.
- jonwinstanley 10mo agoAgreed, sounds like that would be better. I suppose the questions on SO are probably very varied in terms of the traffic they receive, attention they get etc. But there must be some parameters to make it work.