5 ms·

That's crazy. I haven't seen the geography message yet, but I did post a bash question once and someone closed it because it "wasn't about programming."

by jfc 12y ago

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
It's possible to ask a bash question that IS about programming, and it's possible to ask one that ISN'T. Without the question, we can't really judge here which one yours was - can you provide it?
- jfc 12y ago
  It was closed because the person closing it didn't recognize bash as a language; the substance of my question wasn't even at issue. After others pointed out that it is a language, a mod re-opened it and it was answered.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    Well, that's clearly ridiculous, but it's good to hear that it was reopened and the system worked.
    - hueving 12y ago
      It didn't work very well if all of those hoops had to be jumped through just to have the question recognized as valid.
      - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
        Bugs happen. If they get fixed, the process works. It's unrealistic to think that, in an open system, no-one will ever do the wrong thing.
        ebiester 12y ago
        If there are enough people complaining that the error recovery system is invoked far too often, the "one-off" bug should instead be given higher priority as a design flaw.
        Shog9 12y ago
        The problem is, it's easy to pull out specific examples that illustrate bad attitudes, mistakes, etc. Stack Overflow gets somewhere between 8 and 9 thousand questions every day - even with only a small % of those being closed, downvoted, dumped on, etc. that's still a lot of opportunity for error - in both directions (plenty of embarrassingly-bad and outright abusive/trolling posts stick around too long too). So, there are checks and balances and venues for appeal and we try and provide opportunities for both automated systems and humans to review and appeal any decision. If you're patient, it works. If you're not... Well, it's probably not a good place for you to be.
        collyw 12y ago
        This wasn't a bugfix, it was a workaround.
    - protomyth 12y ago
      "the system worked" A system that requires moderation / higher authority to work normally isn't really working, it just has an error recovery mechanism. Systems built on the negative being right and the positive needing proof are particularly painful.
- roel_v 12y ago
  It's exactly this sort of autistic 'oh look at how closely I follow the rules' nonsense that made SO (and Wikipedia, but that's a different discussion) basically worthless for everybody who is not a first-year student any more, so basically all people who have actually something to contribute is actively hindered in contributing. Pray tell, what is there to ask about bash that isn't programming? Now the SO zealot will say 'well the history is bash is not about programming', which is technically correct - and 'technically correct' is the worst kind of correct in existence. A question about the history of bash is close enough to being about programming, let it be. (I don't know if the GP's question was actually about the history of bash, it's just an example of a situation I can imagine in painful realistic detail how it would go down)
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    OK, as you suggest, I could counter with plenty of examples of questions about bash that aren't about programming, but - for the sake of discussion - let's assume those are all close enough since bash is most likely to be used by programmers than non-programmers. where do you now draw the line? do you have a line at all? if not, don't you end up with something like yahoo answers that already exists and is pretty much useless to everyone? The SO founders decided to draw the line at 'programming questions', then built a framework to enforce that. I don't see what's wrong with that. P.S. If you're going to reply, can we keep it civil, please? (edit: wow, someone really has it in for me today)
    - roel_v 12y ago
      We consider questions one by one, just like on the first day SO opened (yes I was there), and the really idiotic ones are downvoted once or twice with their grey headline signaling to everybody who knows the mores of the land 'stay away'. Everybody who isn't interested in more generic questions, recommendations for libraries, opinions etc stays away from those threads and everybody lives happily ever after. What is more important is what shouldn't be done - pages and pages of rules and exact definitions of what is and is not worthy of being a question, with a bunch of language lawyers (who, by the way, for the most part have very little content knowledge yet don't let that stop them from having an opinion on everything) spending ungodly amounts of time combing through the details of every post to judge what does and does not conform to the all mighty 'rules'. I have several times had people with no knowledge (judging from their comment history) and much less time on the site than I have, jump on questions or answers that didn't fit their mindlessly rigid mental image of 'how things should be' and actually detract from the usefulness of the question by their whining about formatting, phrasing of questions, how other content is linked etc. 'Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds', illustrated nowhere as dramatically (and saddeningly) as on Stack Overflow. I'm way more bitter than I should be over something I rationally should just shrug of. But dammit every time something good pops up, the idiots take over after 2 or 3 years. Most Usenet groups, Slashdot, BoS forums, this site - tragedy of the commons, it's perfectly rational and explainable, I understand how and why, and still I hate when it happens, every time.
- ketralnis 12y ago
  Why do you think that he or anyone wants you to judge it?
- kefka 12y ago
  As a user here and a reader on SO, I'll say this: Go to hell. Your responses are less than worthless. You argue and banter, just to be right 'on the internet'. You and comments like yours poisons community after community. Disconnect from the Internet and leave the rest of us in peace.
  - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think you're overreacting. I never intended to invoke such feelings, but don't worry, I'm going to leave this whole topic alone now.
  - chris_wot 12y ago
    The abusive nature of this comment was entirely innappropriate for Hacker News. There was nothing poisonous about the poster's comment, it written in a reasonable tone, wasn't unnecessarily argumentative, didn't say anything objectionable about a particular person and seemed to make a reasonable point. Please try to address the matter without virtiol next time. You can disagree in a civil manner. The above comment has absolutely no valuable content in it, and is extremely poisonous to discussion on HN. Ironically, you just became the person you rail about in your comment!

That's crazy. I haven't seen the geography message yet, but I did post a bash question once and someone closed it because it "wasn't about programming."

by jfc 12y ago

That's crazy. I haven't seen the geography message yet, but I did post a bash question once and someone closed it because it "wasn't about programming."

oneeyedpigeon 12y ago

It's possible to ask a bash question that IS about programming, and it's possible to ask one that ISN'T. Without the question, we can't really judge here which one yours was - can you provide it?

jfc 12y ago
It was closed because the person closing it didn't recognize bash as a language; the substance of my question wasn't even at issue. After others pointed out that it is a language, a mod re-opened it and it was answered.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  Well, that's clearly ridiculous, but it's good to hear that it was reopened and the system worked.
  - hueving 12y ago
    It didn't work very well if all of those hoops had to be jumped through just to have the question recognized as valid.
    - oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
      Bugs happen. If they get fixed, the process works. It's unrealistic to think that, in an open system, no-one will ever do the wrong thing.
      - ebiester 12y ago
        If there are enough people complaining that the error recovery system is invoked far too often, the "one-off" bug should instead be given higher priority as a design flaw.
        Shog9 12y ago
        The problem is, it's easy to pull out specific examples that illustrate bad attitudes, mistakes, etc. Stack Overflow gets somewhere between 8 and 9 thousand questions every day - even with only a small % of those being closed, downvoted, dumped on, etc. that's still a lot of opportunity for error - in both directions (plenty of embarrassingly-bad and outright abusive/trolling posts stick around too long too). So, there are checks and balances and venues for appeal and we try and provide opportunities for both automated systems and humans to review and appeal any decision. If you're patient, it works. If you're not... Well, it's probably not a good place for you to be.
      - collyw 12y ago
        This wasn't a bugfix, it was a workaround.
  - protomyth 12y ago
    "the system worked" A system that requires moderation / higher authority to work normally isn't really working, it just has an error recovery mechanism. Systems built on the negative being right and the positive needing proof are particularly painful.
roel_v 12y ago
It's exactly this sort of autistic 'oh look at how closely I follow the rules' nonsense that made SO (and Wikipedia, but that's a different discussion) basically worthless for everybody who is not a first-year student any more, so basically all people who have actually something to contribute is actively hindered in contributing. Pray tell, what is there to ask about bash that isn't programming? Now the SO zealot will say 'well the history is bash is not about programming', which is technically correct - and 'technically correct' is the worst kind of correct in existence. A question about the history of bash is close enough to being about programming, let it be. (I don't know if the GP's question was actually about the history of bash, it's just an example of a situation I can imagine in painful realistic detail how it would go down)
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  OK, as you suggest, I could counter with plenty of examples of questions about bash that aren't about programming, but - for the sake of discussion - let's assume those are all close enough since bash is most likely to be used by programmers than non-programmers. where do you now draw the line? do you have a line at all? if not, don't you end up with something like yahoo answers that already exists and is pretty much useless to everyone? The SO founders decided to draw the line at 'programming questions', then built a framework to enforce that. I don't see what's wrong with that. P.S. If you're going to reply, can we keep it civil, please? (edit: wow, someone really has it in for me today)
  - roel_v 12y ago
    We consider questions one by one, just like on the first day SO opened (yes I was there), and the really idiotic ones are downvoted once or twice with their grey headline signaling to everybody who knows the mores of the land 'stay away'. Everybody who isn't interested in more generic questions, recommendations for libraries, opinions etc stays away from those threads and everybody lives happily ever after. What is more important is what shouldn't be done - pages and pages of rules and exact definitions of what is and is not worthy of being a question, with a bunch of language lawyers (who, by the way, for the most part have very little content knowledge yet don't let that stop them from having an opinion on everything) spending ungodly amounts of time combing through the details of every post to judge what does and does not conform to the all mighty 'rules'. I have several times had people with no knowledge (judging from their comment history) and much less time on the site than I have, jump on questions or answers that didn't fit their mindlessly rigid mental image of 'how things should be' and actually detract from the usefulness of the question by their whining about formatting, phrasing of questions, how other content is linked etc. 'Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds', illustrated nowhere as dramatically (and saddeningly) as on Stack Overflow. I'm way more bitter than I should be over something I rationally should just shrug of. But dammit every time something good pops up, the idiots take over after 2 or 3 years. Most Usenet groups, Slashdot, BoS forums, this site - tragedy of the commons, it's perfectly rational and explainable, I understand how and why, and still I hate when it happens, every time.
ketralnis 12y ago
Why do you think that he or anyone wants you to judge it?
kefka 12y ago
As a user here and a reader on SO, I'll say this: Go to hell. Your responses are less than worthless. You argue and banter, just to be right 'on the internet'. You and comments like yours poisons community after community. Disconnect from the Internet and leave the rest of us in peace.
- oneeyedpigeon 12y ago
  I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think you're overreacting. I never intended to invoke such feelings, but don't worry, I'm going to leave this whole topic alone now.
- chris_wot 12y ago
  The abusive nature of this comment was entirely innappropriate for Hacker News. There was nothing poisonous about the poster's comment, it written in a reasonable tone, wasn't unnecessarily argumentative, didn't say anything objectionable about a particular person and seemed to make a reasonable point. Please try to address the matter without virtiol next time. You can disagree in a civil manner. The above comment has absolutely no valuable content in it, and is extremely poisonous to discussion on HN. Ironically, you just became the person you rail about in your comment!