I find these days that the answers I'm looking for are increasingly answers that have snuck in during the brief period before questions are flagged as duplicates. For most original questions, the top ten posts are so old that they are no longer relevant.
StackOverflow would be so much better if questions that were flagged as duplicates were not closed for further answers. Flagging a question as a duplicate should be an advisory, not a death knell.
There's also a huge problem with questions that are not duplicates being flagged as duplicates, because there's no penalty for editors being wrong, and no easy way to appeal that decision. Determining whether an answer is a really duplicate often involves close reading of both the original and the new question -- something that seems not to happen in the majority of cases. The problem is compounded because editors have a direct incentive to flag non-duplicates as duplicates. And so, the quality of answers continues to decline.
As a concrete example, my StackOverflow account has accumulated about 5,000 points for an answer I wrote for Android 7 that describes diagnostics that were changed in Android 8. Nevertheless, it continues to accumulate about 100 points a month even today. I can't be bothered to fix it, because it would involve significant research. The contents of the diagnostic results aren't documented. I had to go to Android source to figure out what was actually being reported. And it's not a topic that particularly concerns me at present. If someone were to go to the trouble of analyzing Android 14 sources to update my post, I doubt they would ever be able to overcome the very significant number of upvotes my answer over the last 8 years.
SO power (top 0.07%) user here. Here's how I handle that:
- If adding a new answer to an old question, add a headline at the top of your new answer explaining that it's new for Android 8, post 2017, ES6, whatever else.
Here's a JS vs jQuery answer. 'Trending' shows the 2014 (new) plain-JS answer before the older (2011) jQuery answer:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2276463/how-can-i-get-fo...
- Generally this should be enough to handle fixing things, but if you still use SO and are aware you have an old answer, and don't want to update it, add a headline saying 'This is for Android 7, pre 2017, ES5 and older' etc.
Another choice of vocab: ossified
Highest score (default)
Trending (recent votes count more)
Date modified (newest first)
Date created (oldest first)
For SO, seems a "version applicability" option could go a long way to solving this.
One obvious question, of course, is how the LLMs are going to keep themselves up to date. It's not as if Stack Overflow is doing that, given the points raised by the parent. It seems that we're headed for stasis unless a new developer Q&A paradigm emerges.
And, if the accepted answer is hopelessly outdated, suggest an edit to add that caveat so others know to skip it.
>Accepting an answer is not meant to be a definitive and final statement indicating that the question has now been answered perfectly. It simply means that the author received an answer that worked for them personally.
>Maybe it’s the fate of all Q&A sites to eventually become documentation sites. If you answer the question “correctly” once, why bother repeating yourself?
You have misunderstood the editorial intent of Stack Overflow because it was always meant to be "documentation" more than a service to answer any questions including repeated/duplicated questions. This misunderstanding isn't your fault because most people visiting that site misunderstand it.
I wrote a previous comment citing co-founder Jeff Atwood's reasoning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21115438
StackOverflow seemed to be "more helpful" in the beginning because the volume of content (aka "documentation") was still being seeded and built out by the new questions. Being helpful was a side effect of the site not having much content.
But now that there's a ton of content, a new question is more likely to be cross-referenced to a previous answer and therefore "Closed as duplicate" or some other reason. Yes, that seems a little rude and "unhelpful". And people don't realize that's the way Stack Overflow is designed to work.
EDIT to also add comment from co-founder Spolsky: "In our equation, we are a community of people writing answers that will be read by hundreds or thousands of people. Ours is a project more like wikipedia" from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3656581
So would be much more useful if there were some effective mechanism to get rid of or correct entries that were answered incorrectly in the first place or have become incorrect or no longer relevant with time.
Sometimes, the community will "fix" that by having a newer answer get upvoted beyond the "accepted" answer. E.g. a Python 3.2 answer with more modern syntax in 2014 gets upvoted above the Python 3.1 accepted answer in 2010:
- https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2331592/why-does-datetim...
But that type of "correction" only happens on popular questions. The more obscure questions and answers that are wrong will remain wrong because there are not enough eyeballs and/or widespread expertise to fix them.
The "community" also includes the people who volunteer to answer the questions. The answerers don't want repetition. Jeff Atwood wanted to prioritize the SO experience for the answerers.
To paraphrase JA's reasoning:
- asking questions is easy which can lead to an increasing volume of bad questions that degrades the site for the answerers
- answering questions is hard and more valuable for StackOverflow so optimize the site for them. (JA wrote, ">We feel that the world is awash in questions, but not answers. Answers are the real unit of work in any Q&A; system. Therefore, the only logical thing to do is to maximize the happiness and enjoyment of answerers."[1])
I do understand how you would want SO to work differently and I'm not debating your opinion. I'm just relaying how the cofounders wanted StackOverflow to work.
[1] https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-....
Because people standing from the sidelines telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my spare time leaves more than a little bad taste in my mouth.
And the reason few people understand it is because it's not logical. If you want documentation, read the documentation, and in most cases, that's what they did before asking the question. Anything more than cut and paste of the official documentation is discussion. "Well what is usually done to make this work in practice..." Nope. That's discussion, and to 99.9% of people asking for help, it's why such a site exists.
Do I have evidence? Sure, look at all the questions that have moved to Reddit, Discord, etc.
People also forget that answers are not set in stone. Answers are editable - if an answer needs to be updated for the latest version of a framework, or it’s been obsoleted, just add that to the answer! Low-rep users can suggest edits, while higher-rep users can just go in and edit them. Its not uncommon to see the top answer have an edit pointing at another answer for some newer version.
Centralizing around a single deduplicated answer also has a major benefit: multiple answers can gather on a single question. It’s not always the case that one particular answer works for everyone, so try different answers and see what works (and upvote the ones that do work!)
Yes this was the right solution in the Python stone age version, but no longer the right solution in the current one.
Of course I can give an alternative answer on an old question, but it will appear very low on the page and will get missed by regular users.
Depending on how much of a change it is, that might also be discouraged. Adding a disclaimer about being for an old version is generally fine, rewriting it for the newest version is a big no-no - that's when it should be a new answer.
Yeah, I tried that, and they've always been reverted without explanation. Best you can do is comment and hope someone reads it. I think that's more common today, since it doesn't take long to realize the comments are where the useful information is found.
When I use SO these days (which getting much less common over time, I admit), my habit is to read through the comments first because of this problem.
Better that solutions can be versioned and possibly linked together for findability.
Tech changes (faster now than ever). This will allow newer answers to float to the top and make older questions more obviously replaceable, providing space for beginners to ask questions better couched in today's problem/solution space.
Personally, I find so many of the package-specific answers for Python are out of date. They don't work and/or are not written to current best practice.
1. Moderators were already getting out of control. They had decided among themselves that questions without a provable answer needed to be purged from the site despite them having clear value. A question like "Should I use Java or C++ for X?" can have an answer like "These are the benefits of each and things you should consider". By 2010, that was an automatic "closed, not constructive".
2. Users didn't understand what was and wasn't a duplicate. Two questions may sound simimlar but one important detail can ccompletely change the answer.
3. SO had its most value when all the information was current but as time goes on answers become no longer current and I didn't know how that would be handled. A correct answer in Java 7 might be incorrect in Java 14. I believe this is still handled haphazardly and is a huge problem with, say, Android;
4. The system rewards low-hanging fruit and pretty much discourages any complex question or answer. A complex but legitimate question might be closed as being too specific. It's less likely to find an answer and fewer people understand the answer so won't upvote it (or, worse, will upvote the wrong answer that sounds right).
5. It suffers the problem that all sites do that require users to effectively to rank answers (be that with upvote/downvote, liking or whatever) and that is that people vote for what they like, not what it is correct. Post an objective question about an issue in C++ and a provably correct answer that is perceived to be negative of C++ will attract downvotes from C++ devotees. This applies to SO, reddit, social media sites, HN, etc. This is a pretty negative experience for the answerer.
Forums suck because they're time-ordered. SO's big value was that answeres were net vote ordered so the top answer was often (but not always) the best and/or correct.
I wouldn't necessarily call SO "documentation". "Ossified opinion" would be more accurate in a lot of cases.
But StackOverflow suffered the issue every site that relies on user contributions/moderation does: it ultimately caters to those with the most free time, not those with the most expertise.
And I don't think there's an easy way around the problem.
There are people who ask questions. You need questions but questions come with an audience. You can argue a well-crafted question is better than a bad one but it's not really an issue. The site only has value if the answers are there and they're good. This is the real value of answerers.
In my mind, moderators are the janitors. Yes, that job is important. You need to clean up tags, fix misspellings or bad grammar, remove low value questions and answers but the scope really is pretty limited. But there is a certain personality type that gets attracted to moderation that, if left unchecked, is completely toxic. Instead of cleaning up answers they decide to set policy. "Subjective" questions were one of the first big targets.
It requires constant vigilance for the moderators not to get completely out of hand. Wikipedia is a really great exmaple of this.
Toxic moderators love solving imaginary problems. The argument for closing "subjective" questions was they didn't want it to descend into a flamewar. Thing is, that never happened. And if it did, you just delete the relevant comments and answers. There is absolutely no need for a site-wide ban on "subjective" questions. It's a complete non-problem.
There's also a lot of tinkering and breaking things that is necessary to develop a deeper understanding of a piece of technology, without which the manual is far less useful. Knowing where to look in the official documentation is half or more of the battle. Modern attention spans, planning expectations, systems complexity, etc. are not geared towards developing this deep understanding.
Moreover, the number one tool developers who cut their teeth over the past ~20 years have relied on to help them find the right answers, Google Search, has degraded massively in quality lately. Stack Overflow arguably breathed new life into search engines for a while, until SEO-hacked junk overtook it. Who can forget the classic forum posts "I fixed the problem [no details]" or "Why don't you Google it [even though this is the only meaningful Google result]". Even Stack Overflow runs into those issues, sometimes, though.
Of course there are questions not answered in the documentation, which is where stack overflow can shine.
I think the real problem is google, if it was a great search engine it would give you the appropriate documentation page for your problem and many, many people would never visit stack overflow for the answer.
Finding the right nonprofit structure to handle this need is difficult. And you could always end up like Wikipedia instead, which seems to spend 90% of its donations on things other than its operations, and yet cries that it will shut down if you don't donate your next latte (but I don't drink lattes...).
It was a response to searching the internet trying to find a solution to your problem, ending up with a forum thread with three pages of discussions, and the OP coming back with "nvm i figured it out", but no solution. It was always about long-term documentation. Go read some of Jeff and Joel's old stuff from 2008-2009; it uses exactly those kind of examples.
And stuff like this:
> I think repetition of answers is healthy.
Yeah ... try answering questions for a few months and come back to me on that. I was never on Stack Overflow to be an unpaid tutor, to "teach the next generation", or to be a free debugger-as-a-service. Most people aren't.
And no doubt Stack Overflow is far from perfect, and that at times people interpret the rules (far) too strictly, but this is the same ol' bollocks that's been doing the rounds since 2008, mostly propagated by people who have rarely spent any time answering questions.
It depends on open source docs being poor so noobs need experts to educate them. But it does not place a burden on the experts to improve the original docs.
For example, Python peps and standard library docs are often painfully and needlessly laborious, such that it's often easier to just read the code. Similarly, the git manual is written to induce episodes of acute madness.
The SO solution? Read a thousand piecemeal SO answers, get the job done in a slapdash way, get paid. Don't worry about the inaccessibility, waste, and exponentially accruing technical debt of the whole enterprise.
Priests of this cult often avoid reading the docs, and never pick up the responsibility to improve the awful docs.
The SO high priests will gladly regurgitate their knowledge like mother birds, often in writing as bad as upstream docs. Typically defending and normalizing the inaccessible upstream docs.
It's an accessibility nightmare.
You end up with millions of inefficient and insular tidbits whose sum is somehow less than the whole. It's designed to make users dependent, rather than free them.
It feels like there was a time where SO could have become more. But doing so would have lessened use reliance on SO, and required answerers to improve upstream docs. They chose to be self contained and derivative, rather than transformative to upstream projects.
It will be dismantled.
Now SO has so much entropy that it's only good for AI reprocessing into docs for upstream projects.
Thankfully much of SO knowledge is now bundled into LLMs. So getting actually legible docs is usually as easy as pasting the project docs and asking for an organized and straightforward docs.
The challenge I see is closing the loop and ensuring upstream docs improve. The culture of inaccessibility is too entrenched for SO to do this - the org's revenues would have to collapse. But AI can work to the advantage of an accessibility focused upstart. They can liberate, mobilize and reintegrate the captive knowledge of the SO corpus. They can push it back into open source project docs.
And in cases where upstream prefers bad docs? The upstart should fork the project and take responsibility for project accessibility.
But now just regular search and experience is just enough to resolve most of the questions and not to deal with the arrogance of some folks on SO.
