10 ms·

Not really because the StackExchange thought police really does not let people freely answer the questions. It means in practice that if you write an answer not

by soroso 9y ago

Not really because the StackExchange thought police really does not let people freely answer the questions. It means in practice that if you write an answer not in alignment with the correct thought you get scolded and penalized.

nerdponx 9y ago
What? Answers there disagree all the time. You have an example of this kind of thought police behavior? In all my years on that site I have never seen anything like what you are describing.
- qubex 9y ago
  I’ve experienced it often. I came across a question pertinent to a problem I was experiencing, I tried the work-around in the comments, it didn’t work, I mentioned this and was moderated to oblivion and attacked; I created a new issue, and drew fire for then answering it myself (but also accidentally using a comment to do so); I got hollered at for creating a link between the two issues; I was downvoted for being new. It’s a totally hostile environment. As of then I consider it a Read-Only resource (plus my questions never get answered anyway).
  - cjwhite 9y ago
    I'm sort of amazed that I find anything of value on there, given the same experiences.
    - shagie 9y ago
      The structure of Stack Overflow is designed to get question and answer pairs that contain the critical information and are easily discoverable by google. Questions and answers that have value and that follow that model are likely to be more discovered by people using Google. There are many people who consider all social media sites to be "the same" - basically posting whatever they want. Be it forums and facebook or whatever random idea hits your mind on Quora. Those are different models and work for different types of problems. An asynchronous debugging session likely works better on a more forum like site than Stack Overflow... and yet people post such questions to Stack Overflow. When those questions are found, the people who are entrusted with the various community moderation privileges, in an attempt to follow those ideas of "This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat." (from the tour) will use those moderation tools to try to make the good stuff more findable and the stuff that makes the good stuff harder to find... well... gone. There are many different sites out there that have different focuses. Stack Overflow (and the model the rest of the Stack Exchange sites use) is trying for one narrow slice that they can do well. People that want a forum should look to a forum... those who want to ask for opinions and anecdotes should look to sites that do that better. Stack Overflow is not intended or designed to be the be all and end all of software questions.
      - cjwhite 9y ago
        Thanks for the reply, but this doesn't explain why correcting answers is so frowned-upon. Or a general hostility in tone from the mods. No worries. I find that in practice the kinds of questions that I can't answer for myself (the kinds for which a natural language question rather than a straight Google search for documentation is helpful) are almost always already answered anyway. So having it a read-only site is not a big deal. I think their model does indeed turn away a lot of people with good experience and intentions, and even leaves a lot of incorrect cruft lying around, but overall it's a mostly-beneficial source of information, with, as you say, high searchability.
        shagie 9y ago
        First note - "mods" - only the people who have a diamond after their name are mods - https://stackoverflow.com/users?tab=moderators https://stackoverflow.com/users?tab=moderators - its a rather small group. Everyone on the site who has 15 reputation or more can participate in community moderation to some degree or another. There are people within that community who use the community moderation tools of voting frequently in an effort to have the site match their vision of what it should be... but they aren't mods. When dealing with thousands of questions per day (90% of which are crap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law ), the amount of time they have to work with any one post is very limited. Often people are terse in their comments - it takes time to sit down and write a thought out reply... and that is very limited in comments if it isn't an answer itself (and to that point, that is by design). This terseness of communication is often interpreted as rude. Its not intended to be - its just the medium and limitations. Yes, sometimes people are rude. The thing to do in these cases is flag the comment as rude - if there is a pattern with the behavior, the moderators (with a diamond) handle the flag and will take it up with the user who is rude. Saying that your code does not work as described in the question, however, isn't rude. I applaud your use of google first. There are so many people who fail to realize that the goal of Stack Overflow is exactly for people like you - who search with google and find an answer and never need to ask a question on the site themselves. The significant amount of incorrect cruft laying around is a side effect of people not using the moderation tools (downvotes on questions can make the questions get deleted and make search results better) or a value proposition that has entered the collective community moderation of "anything that attempts to answer the question has value and shouldn't be deleted." Unfortunately, that later point reduces the value proposition of the site and diminishes its utility.
  - afarrell 9y ago
    > drew fire for then answering it myself Which is really weird and unfortuante. Asking and answering a question yourself contributes useful information to the site.
    - chias 9y ago
      Answering your own questions is also explicitly allowed -- you are informed as such on the page where you ask questions. By the sound of it, I suspect expect that what the parent drew fire for was answering his own question using a comment.
      - qubex 9y ago
        I answered myself with a comment, which was a faux ps. It’s rectified now.
  - shagie 9y ago
    There are many Stack sites. Stack Overflow with its 6k questions/day has (by necessity) a different moderation approach than Computer Science.SE that has 16 questions/day. That difference of several orders of magnitude in incoming questions results in very different moderation approaches. You can spend 15 minutes reading every new question and answer every day compared to trying to filter the 90% of crap that gets posted on SO in a few seconds. This means that new users can be given more guidance in crafting a question and getting answers... though again that depends on a user putting the time and effort into writing the question and making sure they understand the scope of the site first. Each site has a different set of users who are using the moderation tools to make the site into the one they want to see. The highest rep user on CS.SE has substantial rep on CS, Math, Theoretical CS, MathOverflow, and TeX (not Stack Overflow). The next highest has rep on CS, Information Security, Cryptography and Theoretical CS (again, not Stack Overflow). The next highest is CS, Theoretical CS, TeX and then 2.7k (not even enough for a close vote) on SO. Followed by a user who has CS, Academia, Aviation, Travel, and English Language Learners (not SO). This is a different community with different goals - in particular, this one is about the mathematical underpinnings of computer science... and that shows in its user base.
    - gbacon 9y ago
      The different sites have different personalities as well. The main SO can be brutal just because the herd responses can be so swift. Niche categories tend to be friendlier, Aviation.SE for example. Gaming, Movies, and Sci-Fi all seem really friendly for the fairly large volume they see. I have heard that chicken farmers have to monitor young chicks carefully for injuries that produce bleeding because when the other chicks spot one, they will relentlessly peck, which is likely to quickly kill the bleeder. Regardless of whether this is true, it’s a decent model for how drawing a bad initial response to a question can be fatal as the other chicks pile on. I once made the mistake of asking on Workplace.SE whether the HR profession had empirical support — as opposed to the usual conflicting folk wisdom — for whether including personal interests on a resume is helpful[0]. An early answer clearly failed to comprehend the question at a basic level, but it nonetheless was the initial spot of blood. Comments from multiple moderators saying the question was reasonable were not enough to stave off the pecking. [0]: https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4888/question-asks-for-fact-based-resume-strategies-supported-by-the-literature-put https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4888/ques...
  - yorwba 9y ago
    If you're also qubex on SO [1], then I'm not seeing any of that hostility. Did it get deleted, or is it that my perception differs because I'm an unrelated third party? [1] https://stackoverflow.com/users/3637244/qubex https://stackoverflow.com/users/3637244/qubex
    - qubex 9y ago
      Yes that’s me, and yes there’s been a significant amount of a posteriori revisionism. As somebody else pointed out, I answered my own question with a comment, which seemed innocuous enough, but was actually a formal faux pas. I guess I had it coming, I didn’t want to make myself out to be innocent and aggrieved, but it struck me as a bit harsh. Then again, everybody always feels they have been treated too harshly...
  - gbacon 9y ago
    An issue with Stack Overflow is that the site incentivizes people with badges to review and disposition large numbers of questions and posts, which spurs Fastest Gun in the West competitions. For a new user unfamiliar with the culture, this can result in a question being downvoted and closed within minutes — not a terribly welcoming feel. Changing the site’s incentives to reward soft skills such as mentoring and encouraging new users seems like a really hard problem. Answering your own question is 100% in bounds; no one should criticize you for that. However, an answer should be posted as an answer, not a comment. My imagination fails early in the morning pondering how one might accidentally use a comment for an answer. In the original question, was the workaround a comment or an answer? Did you stop at “didn’t work” in the failure report? Got a link?
sundarurfriend 9y ago
StackOverflow, and Wikipedia even more so, are real life Stanford prison experiments on the inside. Power, in whatever form, seems to attract abuse and catalyze a bit of megalomania in the holder.
- mamon 9y ago
  You do realize that Standford prison experiments had such a flawed methododology that they are not considered scientificly accurate anymore? For one, they did not do sufficient backgroud checks on intake, so the volunteers were self-selected group of people with sadistic tendencies. Also, researchers were not fully neutral, they were (conciously or not) encouraging subjects to violent behaviours, thus steering the whole study towards expected results
  - Abekkus 9y ago
    Since wikipedia and stack overflow allow for self-selection, and encourage heavy use of editing power, the stanford prison experiment seems like a great analogy for them, but it is nice to hear that the experiment may not represent the tendencies of an average human given power.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >You do realize that Standford prison experiments had such a flawed methododology that they are not considered scientificly accurate anymore? You do realize that that's not relevant to what the parent said? Which (whether correct or not) boils down to that *Exchange sites attract authoritative moderators and gluttons for abuse and punishment users, akin to the Stanford prison experiments.
hungerstrike 9y ago
It's just like here on HN where you MUST agree with the crowd or else your comment will be disappeared. IMO, we need better commenting systems in general.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  Last year I read HN many times a day and often staying awake two days in a row, I've observed that phenomenon you're describing. And from what I've observed, that crowd is different (and stonger) when the Americas are awake than when Europe is awake. There seemed to be less downvoting around 10am GMT than at 6pm GMT.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    I think it's just that less voting in general happens when America is asleep. At least that's the conclusion I drew from my unhealthy sleeping habits.
- MikkoFinell 9y ago
  The problem is that content providers have a financial incentive to create an environment that penalizes anything controversial and rewards unchallenging posts that regurgitate whatever the lowest common denominator of that community happens to be. Reddit is by far the worst example of this, but it feels like HN is becoming more like that as time goes by.
  - zzzcpan 9y ago
    Isn't there always everywhere more people interested in a subject than experts and groupthink with wrong and not well informed opinions becomes inevitable? At least on HN you are free to attempt to influence the groupthink.
gbacon 9y ago
Good thing there are no thought police on HN.

by soroso 9y ago

nerdponx 9y ago

What? Answers there disagree all the time. You have an example of this kind of thought police behavior? In all my years on that site I have never seen anything like what you are describing.

qubex 9y ago
I’ve experienced it often. I came across a question pertinent to a problem I was experiencing, I tried the work-around in the comments, it didn’t work, I mentioned this and was moderated to oblivion and attacked; I created a new issue, and drew fire for then answering it myself (but also accidentally using a comment to do so); I got hollered at for creating a link between the two issues; I was downvoted for being new. It’s a totally hostile environment. As of then I consider it a Read-Only resource (plus my questions never get answered anyway).
- cjwhite 9y ago
  I'm sort of amazed that I find anything of value on there, given the same experiences.
  - shagie 9y ago
    The structure of Stack Overflow is designed to get question and answer pairs that contain the critical information and are easily discoverable by google. Questions and answers that have value and that follow that model are likely to be more discovered by people using Google. There are many people who consider all social media sites to be "the same" - basically posting whatever they want. Be it forums and facebook or whatever random idea hits your mind on Quora. Those are different models and work for different types of problems. An asynchronous debugging session likely works better on a more forum like site than Stack Overflow... and yet people post such questions to Stack Overflow. When those questions are found, the people who are entrusted with the various community moderation privileges, in an attempt to follow those ideas of "This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat." (from the tour) will use those moderation tools to try to make the good stuff more findable and the stuff that makes the good stuff harder to find... well... gone. There are many different sites out there that have different focuses. Stack Overflow (and the model the rest of the Stack Exchange sites use) is trying for one narrow slice that they can do well. People that want a forum should look to a forum... those who want to ask for opinions and anecdotes should look to sites that do that better. Stack Overflow is not intended or designed to be the be all and end all of software questions.
    - cjwhite 9y ago
      Thanks for the reply, but this doesn't explain why correcting answers is so frowned-upon. Or a general hostility in tone from the mods. No worries. I find that in practice the kinds of questions that I can't answer for myself (the kinds for which a natural language question rather than a straight Google search for documentation is helpful) are almost always already answered anyway. So having it a read-only site is not a big deal. I think their model does indeed turn away a lot of people with good experience and intentions, and even leaves a lot of incorrect cruft lying around, but overall it's a mostly-beneficial source of information, with, as you say, high searchability.
      - shagie 9y ago
        First note - "mods" - only the people who have a diamond after their name are mods - https://stackoverflow.com/users?tab=moderators https://stackoverflow.com/users?tab=moderators - its a rather small group. Everyone on the site who has 15 reputation or more can participate in community moderation to some degree or another. There are people within that community who use the community moderation tools of voting frequently in an effort to have the site match their vision of what it should be... but they aren't mods. When dealing with thousands of questions per day (90% of which are crap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law ), the amount of time they have to work with any one post is very limited. Often people are terse in their comments - it takes time to sit down and write a thought out reply... and that is very limited in comments if it isn't an answer itself (and to that point, that is by design). This terseness of communication is often interpreted as rude. Its not intended to be - its just the medium and limitations. Yes, sometimes people are rude. The thing to do in these cases is flag the comment as rude - if there is a pattern with the behavior, the moderators (with a diamond) handle the flag and will take it up with the user who is rude. Saying that your code does not work as described in the question, however, isn't rude. I applaud your use of google first. There are so many people who fail to realize that the goal of Stack Overflow is exactly for people like you - who search with google and find an answer and never need to ask a question on the site themselves. The significant amount of incorrect cruft laying around is a side effect of people not using the moderation tools (downvotes on questions can make the questions get deleted and make search results better) or a value proposition that has entered the collective community moderation of "anything that attempts to answer the question has value and shouldn't be deleted." Unfortunately, that later point reduces the value proposition of the site and diminishes its utility.
- afarrell 9y ago
  > drew fire for then answering it myself Which is really weird and unfortuante. Asking and answering a question yourself contributes useful information to the site.
  - chias 9y ago
    Answering your own questions is also explicitly allowed -- you are informed as such on the page where you ask questions. By the sound of it, I suspect expect that what the parent drew fire for was answering his own question using a comment.
    - qubex 9y ago
      I answered myself with a comment, which was a faux ps. It’s rectified now.
- shagie 9y ago
  There are many Stack sites. Stack Overflow with its 6k questions/day has (by necessity) a different moderation approach than Computer Science.SE that has 16 questions/day. That difference of several orders of magnitude in incoming questions results in very different moderation approaches. You can spend 15 minutes reading every new question and answer every day compared to trying to filter the 90% of crap that gets posted on SO in a few seconds. This means that new users can be given more guidance in crafting a question and getting answers... though again that depends on a user putting the time and effort into writing the question and making sure they understand the scope of the site first. Each site has a different set of users who are using the moderation tools to make the site into the one they want to see. The highest rep user on CS.SE has substantial rep on CS, Math, Theoretical CS, MathOverflow, and TeX (not Stack Overflow). The next highest has rep on CS, Information Security, Cryptography and Theoretical CS (again, not Stack Overflow). The next highest is CS, Theoretical CS, TeX and then 2.7k (not even enough for a close vote) on SO. Followed by a user who has CS, Academia, Aviation, Travel, and English Language Learners (not SO). This is a different community with different goals - in particular, this one is about the mathematical underpinnings of computer science... and that shows in its user base.
  - gbacon 9y ago
    The different sites have different personalities as well. The main SO can be brutal just because the herd responses can be so swift. Niche categories tend to be friendlier, Aviation.SE for example. Gaming, Movies, and Sci-Fi all seem really friendly for the fairly large volume they see. I have heard that chicken farmers have to monitor young chicks carefully for injuries that produce bleeding because when the other chicks spot one, they will relentlessly peck, which is likely to quickly kill the bleeder. Regardless of whether this is true, it’s a decent model for how drawing a bad initial response to a question can be fatal as the other chicks pile on. I once made the mistake of asking on Workplace.SE whether the HR profession had empirical support — as opposed to the usual conflicting folk wisdom — for whether including personal interests on a resume is helpful[0]. An early answer clearly failed to comprehend the question at a basic level, but it nonetheless was the initial spot of blood. Comments from multiple moderators saying the question was reasonable were not enough to stave off the pecking. [0]: https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4888/question-asks-for-fact-based-resume-strategies-supported-by-the-literature-put https://workplace.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4888/ques...
- yorwba 9y ago
  If you're also qubex on SO [1], then I'm not seeing any of that hostility. Did it get deleted, or is it that my perception differs because I'm an unrelated third party? [1] https://stackoverflow.com/users/3637244/qubex https://stackoverflow.com/users/3637244/qubex
  - qubex 9y ago
    Yes that’s me, and yes there’s been a significant amount of a posteriori revisionism. As somebody else pointed out, I answered my own question with a comment, which seemed innocuous enough, but was actually a formal faux pas. I guess I had it coming, I didn’t want to make myself out to be innocent and aggrieved, but it struck me as a bit harsh. Then again, everybody always feels they have been treated too harshly...
- gbacon 9y ago
  An issue with Stack Overflow is that the site incentivizes people with badges to review and disposition large numbers of questions and posts, which spurs Fastest Gun in the West competitions. For a new user unfamiliar with the culture, this can result in a question being downvoted and closed within minutes — not a terribly welcoming feel. Changing the site’s incentives to reward soft skills such as mentoring and encouraging new users seems like a really hard problem. Answering your own question is 100% in bounds; no one should criticize you for that. However, an answer should be posted as an answer, not a comment. My imagination fails early in the morning pondering how one might accidentally use a comment for an answer. In the original question, was the workaround a comment or an answer? Did you stop at “didn’t work” in the failure report? Got a link?

sundarurfriend 9y ago

StackOverflow, and Wikipedia even more so, are real life Stanford prison experiments on the inside. Power, in whatever form, seems to attract abuse and catalyze a bit of megalomania in the holder.

mamon 9y ago
You do realize that Standford prison experiments had such a flawed methododology that they are not considered scientificly accurate anymore? For one, they did not do sufficient backgroud checks on intake, so the volunteers were self-selected group of people with sadistic tendencies. Also, researchers were not fully neutral, they were (conciously or not) encouraging subjects to violent behaviours, thus steering the whole study towards expected results
- Abekkus 9y ago
  Since wikipedia and stack overflow allow for self-selection, and encourage heavy use of editing power, the stanford prison experiment seems like a great analogy for them, but it is nice to hear that the experiment may not represent the tendencies of an average human given power.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >You do realize that Standford prison experiments had such a flawed methododology that they are not considered scientificly accurate anymore? You do realize that that's not relevant to what the parent said? Which (whether correct or not) boils down to that *Exchange sites attract authoritative moderators and gluttons for abuse and punishment users, akin to the Stanford prison experiments.

hungerstrike 9y ago

It's just like here on HN where you MUST agree with the crowd or else your comment will be disappeared. IMO, we need better commenting systems in general.

jrimbault 9y ago
Last year I read HN many times a day and often staying awake two days in a row, I've observed that phenomenon you're describing. And from what I've observed, that crowd is different (and stonger) when the Americas are awake than when Europe is awake. There seemed to be less downvoting around 10am GMT than at 6pm GMT.
- yorwba 9y ago
  I think it's just that less voting in general happens when America is asleep. At least that's the conclusion I drew from my unhealthy sleeping habits.
MikkoFinell 9y ago
The problem is that content providers have a financial incentive to create an environment that penalizes anything controversial and rewards unchallenging posts that regurgitate whatever the lowest common denominator of that community happens to be. Reddit is by far the worst example of this, but it feels like HN is becoming more like that as time goes by.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  Isn't there always everywhere more people interested in a subject than experts and groupthink with wrong and not well informed opinions becomes inevitable? At least on HN you are free to attempt to influence the groupthink.

gbacon 9y ago

Good thing there are no thought police on HN.