I guess that Stackoverflow Inc. realized that the mods don't really contribute something of value.
What would be the advantage of not closing a question? I voted to close one this week that read, basically, that something unspecfied was "similar to" something correct, and asked why the unspecified thing was a syntax error. It can't be answered, why should it be left around for answerers or search engines to see?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/imap+ruby doesn't link to any closed questions about using IMAP in Ruby, for example, and I do think that page would be worse if it included closed questions.
https://stackoverflow.com/q/57358883 (the most recent question tagged imap+ruby) links to about a dozen "related questions", and the list excludes closed questions. Again, I think that list would be worse if it included closed questions. Your opinion?
The first linke to a question (when I searched) is to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2687566, which "is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion".
I can see how answers to that question will tend to be opinionated rather than factual, so... do you (any HNer, really) think SO's topic rules should have included such questions? Or do you think the such questions should be off-topic, but off-topic questions should be left alone?
Genuinely curious here. I've read so many disapproving comments about closed questions on SO, and I don't understand the substance behind them.
I can see that it's not a question which has a 'terminal' set of answers. But it's not a bad question. I also think it's less flamebait-y compared to ... say, "why do people use Emacs when vim exists" or "what's the best language".
From the perspective of coming across questions like this from searching for e.g. "learn JavaScript in a weekend": it's seeing a negative signal when looking for a positive one. If people are asking and answering things which I (and Google search) think are useful, then "Closed, don't want this" seems a bit of an obstacle.
> Why are people disapproving of closed questions?
My main interaction with StackOverflow is visiting it from the search engine result page.
The most common kind of closed question I see (from memory) is "closed as duplicate". The answers to the question I came across aren't the same as the question it duplicates. I think I'd notice this less if the answers were just merged. -- But, I'd also be concerned about if it's falsely marked as duplicate, that'd be frustrating.
(FYI, duplicate isn't the top close reason. The fuzzy trio unclear/overbroad/unreproducible accounts for very roughly 50% and duplicate 20%.)
Then they take a strong stance with company and are shocked to loose the virtual badges and titles
Here is the thing when you are a part of a community and take a strong stance they may disagree sideline you or kick you out no surprise here and that goes 100x when it’s a company
If you are working for a company in exchange for virtual badges, you are working for a company in exchange for virtual badges you are not the Shepard owner of the community
And lastly on my rant when I hear “we the stack over flow moderators” i picture a wide group of people some helpful some selfless some looking to be part of a community some thinking they own the community ...
What are you describing here? There is exactly one moderator who was let go involuntarily, and she did not take any stance against the company whatsoever. I do not get the impression that you have a clear picture of what's going on.
> spending their free time working for a company in exchange for some virtual badge
Most of the activities you perform as a moderator do not grant badges (even if they would for "normal" users). In fact, said dismissed moderator only noticed her dismissal when she suddenly received badges for her everyday moderation work.
> thinking they are responsible for a community and feel ownership
There is no ownership over any community. That's just the wrong word. But the moderators are the part of the community that is closest to the company. If the company ignores the moderators, it ignores the community at large.
I haven't seen any statistics, but it looks like only a few well known mods are leaving. So, almost all mods are remaining.
There are a little over 600 total moods on StackExchange. Over 20 mods on the StackOverflow part of StackExchange. The announced departures from StackExchange are in the tens.
For better or for worse, SO will be able to scrape by with the remaining mods.
The only real problem for SO is the lack of trust. I've lost trust in the employees of SO. With every post from a SO employee, it gets worse and worse.
Who are the direct competitors of SO, if any? I would like to use a different site, if possible.
---
On this page which is updated daily, https://stackexchange.com/about/moderators I count 629 moderators across 173 sites.
---
For example, the Wayback machine shows that on December 9, 2018, the moderators on the StackOverflow part of StackExchange were these 26:
Michael Myers, Robert Harvey, BoltClock, George Stocker, Brad Larson, ThiefMaster, ChrisF, Flexo, Ry-, Bohemian, meagar, Martijn Pieters, Jon Clements, josliber, Madara Uchiha, TheLostMind, Undo, deceze, Aaron Hall, Bhargav Rao, Andy, Cody Gray, Yvette Colomb, Samuel Liew, Rob, Ed Cottrell
Today, I see these 23. If you remove George Stocker, 22:
Michael Myers, BoltClock, George Stocker, Brad Larson, ChrisF, Flexo, Ry-, Bohemian, meagar, Martijn Pieters, Jon Clements, josliber, Madara Uchiha, Undo, deceze, Aaron Hall, Bhargav Rao, Andy, Cody Gray, Rob, Baum mit Augen, Jean-François Fabre, Samuel Liew
Yes. That's a significant drop, but not enough for the users of StackOverflow to notice a difference.