←back to thread

My stackoverflow question was closed so here's a blog post about CoreWCF

(richardcocks.github.io)
123 points eterm | 2 comments | 08 May 25 12:11 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
palata ◴[08 May 25 12:42 UTC] No.43925550[source]▶
I used to be very active on StackOverflow, it was a great platform.

After a while, I stopped having to post questions about "common frameworks", either because I could do with the official docs of because there was already a StackOverflow answer for my question.

What was becoming more common was that I would have a question similar to an existing unanswered one. Or that my question would never receive an answer (presumably because my questions were becoming more tricky/niche). So what I started doing was answering my own question (or answering those existing unanswered ones) after solving it on my own. Still, it was fine and I was contributing.

And for some reason, a few years ago my questions started being closed for no apparent reason other than "those who reviewed it have no clue and think that it is invalid". Many times they closed even though I had posted both the question and the answer at the same time (as a way to help others)! The first few times, I fought to get my question reopened and guess what? They all got a few tens of votes in the following year. Not so useless, eh?

Still, that toxic moderation hasn't changed. If anything, it has gotten worse. So I stopped contributing to StackOverflow entirely. If I find information there, that's great, if not, I won't go and add it once I find a solution for myself. I am usually better off opening an issue or discussion directly with the upstream project, bypassing StackOverflow's moderation.

I heard people mentioning that LLMs were hurting StackOverflow badly. I'm here to say that what pushed me away was the toxic moderation, not LLMs.

replies(11): >>43925615 #>>43925635 #>>43925672 #>>43925770 #>>43925812 #>>43925847 #>>43925920 #>>43926032 #>>43926167 #>>43926867 #>>43926962 #
esafak ◴[08 May 25 12:51 UTC] No.43925615[source]▶
The moderators were elected. What should StackOverflow have done, held a vote of no confidence? Given them less power; make moderation more democratic?
replies(10): >>43925641 #>>43925662 #>>43925721 #>>43925726 #>>43925734 #>>43925802 #>>43925837 #>>43925905 #>>43925935 #>>43927665 #
1. mschuster91 ◴[08 May 25 13:04 UTC] No.43925726[source]▶
There should always be some sort of human to appeal to. Even Wikipedia has it this way at least formally [1], although "office actions" overruling community moderation decisions are extremely rare.

[1] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Wikimedia_Found...

replies(1): >>43928027 #
2. zahlman ◴[08 May 25 16:42 UTC] No.43928027[source]▶
There is: you can appeal to the community in general, and most curation (not "moderation"!) was done by agreement between community members in the first place.

If you ask a question on Stack Overflow and it gets closed, you are generally expected to edit it to fix the identified problem and submit it for re-evaluation. It gets put in a queue that other users can review; and everyone with close-vote privileges also has reopen-vote privileges, and can come along randomly and evaluate the question anew.

If you believe the community has misunderstood something about the question or has misapplied policy, you can ask about it on https://meta.stackoverflow.com . However, when you come to the meta site, you are generally expected to have a basic understanding of what the policy is and what our goals are (hint: not helping you, personally, make your code work), and to accept that you may have misunderstood something. And you should be prepared for the fact that voting works differently on meta (https://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-meta).

People who vote to close your question (or downvote it) are explicitly not required to explain this (again for well considered reasons, largely around the risk of harassment or abuse: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357436). But usually, if the standard close-reason advice won't be obvious, someone will try to explain. If they think the question is unclear, they'll try to say specifically why they are confused; if it seems to lack focus, they'll highlight the separate problems you're asking about or explain what seems irrelevant; if it "needs debugging details" then they'll explain how your code sample falls short of the https://stackoverflow.com/help/minimal-reproducible-example standard.

If you need an explanation and don't get one, you can again ask on meta. Despite the downvoting, if you're polite and understanding (i.e. don't come in with the mindset that we must have made a mistake or are doing something wrong by having a site that works differently from other sites), we'll be polite and sympathetic, and try to explain as best we can.