6 ms·

This may be the longest Stack Overflow question I've ever seen, with a code block, three graphs, and a list of links to related questions, comprising four and a

This may be the longest Stack Overflow question I've ever seen, with a code block, three graphs, and a list of links to related questions, comprising four and a half screenfuls on my display. (The accepted answer is five and a half screenfuls.)

svat 3y ago
People who complain about their experience of posting questions on StackOverflow often seem to have started with the idea that it was a website for getting help, rather than what it actually is: a way to compete for the attention of a certain community of potential answerers. Like most games, this too has become harder over the years, in this case as the player needs to work harder to distinguish themselves from the mass of low-effort posters. (Not every question needs to be this long--this one's length seems to be because the asker is more a historian than a mathematician--but length and such sections--graphs, links etc--are one way it gets signaled that you really have put effort into the question.)
- d0mine 3y ago
  There may be several ways to look at StackOverflow. For example, as someone who answered thousands of questions, I don't care about author's effort--I optimize for future readers from google when considering what question is worth the time to answer it.
  - svat 3y ago
    Yeah I agree; there are several strategies for the game as a question asker. For me when answering (only a few hundred answers across all Stack Exchange sites, so I'm already in the "tail" and probably not representative of the typical answerer), I mainly care about whether the question seems interesting and challenging to me (I'm especially likely to answer if I think no one else would answer). But the point remains that with several thousand questions being asked a day on Stack Overflow, most potential answerers are indeed likely considering "what question is worth the time to answer it" as you said, so a question needs something (effort, interest, broad utility… or just a stroke of good luck) to get "successful". So when asking (~80 questions asked so far across SE sites, only 8 on Stack Overflow), I try to put effort into it (and show it), but ultimately still just treat each question as a gamble and if it doesn't "work out" (question got few/zero/negative votes, or no useful answers) it's no big deal (just lost a turn, try again next time… at least I learned something about what sorts of questions work well on this particular site, and got an opportunity to state my question as clearly as I could, which is often the most useful part of the process). But I can see how people who approach asking questions on StackOverflow from a mindset of "I need help and hope to get it here" can easily get frustrated.
- mhh__ 3y ago
  Yeah. Admittedly I haven't been burnt in a while but stackoverflow (stackexchange, really, i haven't truly learnt from stackoverflow in a while) is the highest signal to noise I know of online
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

svat 3y ago

People who complain about their experience of posting questions on StackOverflow often seem to have started with the idea that it was a website for getting help, rather than what it actually is: a way to compete for the attention of a certain community of potential answerers. Like most games, this too has become harder over the years, in this case as the player needs to work harder to distinguish themselves from the mass of low-effort posters. (Not every question needs to be this long--this one's length seems to be because the asker is more a historian than a mathematician--but length and such sections--graphs, links etc--are one way it gets signaled that you really have put effort into the question.)

d0mine 3y ago
There may be several ways to look at StackOverflow. For example, as someone who answered thousands of questions, I don't care about author's effort--I optimize for future readers from google when considering what question is worth the time to answer it.
- svat 3y ago
  Yeah I agree; there are several strategies for the game as a question asker. For me when answering (only a few hundred answers across all Stack Exchange sites, so I'm already in the "tail" and probably not representative of the typical answerer), I mainly care about whether the question seems interesting and challenging to me (I'm especially likely to answer if I think no one else would answer). But the point remains that with several thousand questions being asked a day on Stack Overflow, most potential answerers are indeed likely considering "what question is worth the time to answer it" as you said, so a question needs something (effort, interest, broad utility… or just a stroke of good luck) to get "successful". So when asking (~80 questions asked so far across SE sites, only 8 on Stack Overflow), I try to put effort into it (and show it), but ultimately still just treat each question as a gamble and if it doesn't "work out" (question got few/zero/negative votes, or no useful answers) it's no big deal (just lost a turn, try again next time… at least I learned something about what sorts of questions work well on this particular site, and got an opportunity to state my question as clearly as I could, which is often the most useful part of the process). But I can see how people who approach asking questions on StackOverflow from a mindset of "I need help and hope to get it here" can easily get frustrated.
mhh__ 3y ago
Yeah. Admittedly I haven't been burnt in a while but stackoverflow (stackexchange, really, i haven't truly learnt from stackoverflow in a while) is the highest signal to noise I know of online

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]