Stack Overflow Does Not Want to Help You
stackoverflow-makes-me-sad.bearblog.dev
stackoverflow-makes-me-sad.bearblog.dev
Sometimes moderators overstep or apply rules unequally. It is essentially a random group of people deciding what the site's values mean to them, with the power to enact their will.
But it does seem to work. Stack Overflow, Wikipedia, and Reddit have found massive success in large part to the work of the volunteer moderation. I have no doubt each of the communities would be significantly worse off without the collective thousands of hours of thankless moderation work done by volunteers.
So it's a very similar experience to OP. There are hidden rules decided by the whims and desires of the mods and possibly even the administration.
This is not, imo, a successful way of moderating a website. You need to be more clear about what the rules really are, and if the rules are not clear, be forgiving. We are human beings and should treat each other with some level of leniancy and forgiveness. Otherwise, we may as well let a computer moderate instead, and relieve all the unpaid heroes from their duties. No offense.
In the time-honored tradition of virtualization, I would propose simply to have "moderator" subscriptions similar to subreddit subscriptions. At face value the site is unmoderated (modulo necessary legal requirements), a user may moderate as they please, have AI moderator filters, and share these publicly at their choice, and subscribe to moderations others have shared.
The whole free speech issue began when sites decided that they ought to know what people should and should not be listening to and reading. Easily fixed though, keep the speech free, it's free to the person who speaks, and let the listener and reader choose on their own what they shall and shall not listen to.
I once asked for recommendations for a message queue framework given some requirements. The question was closed as off topic within minutes, apparently asking for the right programming framework is verboten.
To me moderation is about removing actively harmful / unhelpful content. SO moderation feels like a chivalric order dedicated to upholding some half-sane, half-insane rules they made up for themselves.
You see volunteer moderators, I see people desperately trying to gate-keep answers.
And there's no saving it, no one will be able to rebuild the culture of that place, it will end with everyone screaming at each other and closing their questions.
It’s just about who has the control over what is seen and shared. Let the users vote, annotate, block, etc.
The site itself was built on a platform of being a tool alone, where people shouldn't interact unless it was to ask a question or provide an answer. I have made friends and met multiple people from the multiple forums and user groups I was a member of but I met 0 people at SO even though i contributed hundreds of answers.
So it's no wonder it produced this mechanistic and toxic environment. It saddens me we lost so much of these niche communities to this thing.
I created an anonymous account a year later, used it for a few one-off questions and answers and never bothered contributing again.
I don't even really use it for the "A" part of Q&A since most of the content seems pretty much out-of-date. It's rare to find a good answer for current programming problems, IMO.
I agree, most of the answers I personally come across are out of date.
There's something about software that attracts people who interpret rules for humans as something to be interpreted by computers rather than people.
Absolute word Vs rough guidelines.
Ive had some of my questions get closed and then get pointed to an earlier question, where the only way to recognize that the answer Im looking for is mentioned on the page is to know the answer already.
This is a success. You asked a question, you got the answer to your question. Closing your question as a duplicate is not punishment or mockery. Closing your question as a duplicate is saying “We already have the answer to that question! Here it is! No need to wait for somebody to come along and explain it again.”
Stack Overflow is a wiki, not a forum or help desk. If somebody starts a new Wikipedia page on George Washington, the correct response is not to have two pages on George Washington, the correct response is to delete one of them. The same applies here.
They are also drumming up old (12 year plus old) questions finding duplicates and accusing people of plagiarism when the site rules changed.
It’s gotten worse over time
I’m replying to a comment that is talking about exactly that. If you want to complain about something else, then that’s a different discussion. But for the purpose of this discussion, yes, it’s that.
> It’s the browbeating that is a turn off and rude comments. Like others have said, it is toxic.
Can you give some examples? If I believed everything people say on this subject, I would expect to see a never-ending stream of insults and bullying on Stack Overflow, but when I go there, I don’t see anything of the sort, except for the occasional comment that’s voted heavily down and/or moderated away. I know toxic behaviour is against the rules, and I can see those rules are enforced effectively.
As far as I can tell, the idea that Stack Overflow is a pit of toxicity is a complete myth. Where is all of this toxicity? Saying that something is off-topic for the site is not toxicity. Closing things as duplicates is not toxicity. Hitting pause on an account that is mass-deleting content is not toxicity.
Tone, excessive italicization for emphasis.
"If I believed everything people say on this subject"
Yes, that. You really should watch how you speak.
My last question was why I couldn't unload an llm, seems the app only supported load via the api, not unload. It instantly knew the answer and gave me the syntax. (call the manager binary to unload)
Plus the AI gave it to me without reading negative comments like do it in a different language, or i'm using the wrong product, etc.
This is a class of problem where the community becomes navel gazing and spends most of its time litigating the rules. It was a classic thing to happen to old forums.
That's where Monica's at.