Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempguy9999 | Hacker News Reader

I guess I'm the only one who doesn't seem to have any problems with wiki[1] or SO.

Every time this comes up people will shout about how unfairly they've been treated, and sure I've seen questions closed when they shouldn't have been, but often they're closed because they're dups or just homework which could have been found with a dab of googling.

Odd that these complainers never seem to link to a question of theirs to show us an example.

So I'll present my challenge again, to the parent @kstenerud and anyone else, if you say it's happened to you, post a link so we can judge.

[1] One exception, did meet a gatekeeper on a wiki article I questioned, in the end we sorted it out civilly.

View on HN

Shameless plug. I did some analysis on closed and deleted questions on StackOverflow posted between 2008-2014 [0, 1]. The key findings from the analysis were as follows

* Closed questions due to the reason "subjective" are very popular amongst the subscribers but not in line with Stackoverflow rules

* Closed questions with reasons "duplicates" and "off topic" are the prime question areas for reputation gaming

* Deleted questions are very low in quality and are pretty much unrevivable with interference, unlike closed questions. Pyramidal structure of decreasing quality - Normal -> Closed -> Deleted

* If your question is accidentally deleted, such ones are revived quickly

Some side notes

* Deleted questions are clearly against guidelines and the style of writing is enough to give away these questions are just poor even without the actual content.

* Most closed questions are relatively good in content quality but against site guidelines (off topic, subjective etc.)

Personally, I see more often than not that people are just annoyed they can't ask their question on Stackoverflow rather than accepting that SO isn't the right place to ask their question. In addition, I also see answers/comments very hostile and don't lead to constructive feedback. A typical example of this behavior is Person P asks Question Q. An expert E makes a comment "Why are you doing this? You shouldn't do this - this is not the right away". Such a comment is not helpful because it passes a judgment on the approach of the question rather than answering it even if the question approach was not correct.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7291

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.0480

These were literally the first 3 questions on my review queue:

* https://stackoverflow.com/q/59344615 - A question by an absolute beginner, trying to do something that they have no clue how to start with. Already closed.

* https://stackoverflow.com/q/59341242 - A question about parsing a JSON response with jQuery. Two votes to close. The asker clearly does not know the word "parse".

* https://stackoverflow.com/q/57969318 - Someone trying to figure out an error message they're getting with kubernetes. This is exactly the kind of thing you get at the top of your google results when you hit the same error, and with one more vote to close, it will be forever locked with no useful information. Some asshole even downvoted the one answer that is there without adding any comments.

None of these questions are good, but they could be made better, and they all represent people with real problems that deserve help. Getting mad at people for "being lazy" (because if I, the expert, could easily find the answer to this, then why didn't you?!), is not productive.

Here's what I don't understand about all these SO deletionists: how is closing the question helpful in any way? If you don't find the question answerable, then don't answer it! But why block other people from trying to help? It's not like you're somehow "teaching" these people how to ask by blocking them. The user from question 59344615 (which got closed) did not post another question with better details. They just left the site, one more developer that doesn't have anywhere they can ask newbie questions. It sucks.

One of the irritating things about SO is people who don't read the question before answering it[0]. As you apparently haven't read mine.

Are these your questions, as I asked? Of course you can find such problems, that's not what I was asking. But let's go on.

As to your questions, the first has been closed, and quite correctly as it's too vague.

The 2nd is not closed, and has answers. Problem?

The 3rd is not closed, and has an answer (albeit downvoted unhelpfully as you note). But the answer's there.

Not your questions anyway, and 1 closed correctly and 2 still open and with answers.

I don't accept this as strong evidence of wrongdoing.

[0] edit: ahem, not that I'm in a position to accuse others of this at times.

First one was aptly closed IMHO, much too vague. SO is not the right tool for absolute beginners to seek guidance when they have no idea what they're doing: the format asks for a reasonably specific answerable question. Would be nice if upon closing the asker was given pointers to beginner-friendly resources, though.

The other two are better, and (aptly) not closed. Of course you'll get inappropriate votes to close, but I hope they are correctly offset by other votes the (hopefully vast) majority of the time.

Now about this:

> how is closing the question helpful in any way?

I suppose it's to stay focused. When googling I quite often get useful SO results (& upvote those), and I'm happy not having to sift through tons of useless questions.

All 3 are closed now.

To do so, I would have to start keeping a log of each time I go through google to a SO answer that is being unfairly closed/downvoted/whatever.

For Wikipedia, you never actually see what goes on without going to the discussion page, which I've never looked at except when someone pointed me there (once again, I've not kept a journal of such excursions, and can therefore not answer your challenge). I have, however, seen enough to never ever try editing a page for any reason.

> Odd that these complainers never seem to link to a question of theirs to show us an example.

This feels more like an invitation to start some drama and nitpick pointlessly over an example than to actually reasonably discuss any issues. Like other commenters have mentioned: reasonable people do not keep lists of examples like this, just like reasonable people don't keep "burn books" of every time they've felt slighted.

How do we "reasonably discuss any issues" unless someone presents examples of the "issues"? I suspect most of these "issues" don't exist.

> reasonable people do not keep lists of examples like this

Per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21796919 you don't have to.

The lack of such delinquent SO examples here is telling.

> How do we "reasonably discuss any issues" unless someone presents examples of the "issues"?

How most people discuss things: by relating their experiences and impressions, and listening to those of others with an open mind.

Here's mine: it can be very obnoxious to extract a good answer out of the SO community for a challenging question. Often all you get are answers to different easier questions or a useless "don't do that." It takes a lot of annoying policing and preemptive anticipations of SO's typical bad answers to keep things on track. I've also personally come across many closed questions that were helpful and exactly what I wanted. I've also found myself having to pre-emptively address the closers because they're too trigger happy.

What I've just said is true, but the few examples I have would link you to my SO account, and honestly, you don't seem like the kind of person who I'd feel comfortable sharing that with.

> I suspect most of these "issues" don't exist.

I suspect you have a perspective that makes you blind to them. I would suggest listening more and holding off on the aggressive challenges rather than opening with them.

> The lack of such delinquent SO examples here is telling.

It only tells that people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

Interesting response. OK.

> 1) by relating experiences and impressions, 2) and listening to those of others with an open mind

1) may not be correct (plus my own impression that SO isn't terrible doesn't count?) and 2) I've a perfectly open mind, that's why I asked the question. I asked for evidence. That's a reasonable request.

> it can be very obnoxious to ... to keep things on track

I've experienced some of that, in a minor form. That people are having trouble showing much evidence is what I keep coming back to. It may be that you're asking higher level questions than I am.

> What I've just said is true...

That's useless to me or to this argument. I want evidence.

> few examples I have would link you to my SO account

well, OK, I can sympathise with that - to an extent.

> people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

Garbage. What 'precise hoops'? I asked that those hard done by post some personal evidence, which is easily found (if it exists).

> (plus my own impression that SO isn't terrible doesn't count?)

It does, but you didn't just contribute it to the discussion. You've been outright declaring your interlocutor's impressions to be wrong and making demands of them in a way that discourages me from wanting to listen to you.

>> people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them.

> Garbage. What 'precise hoops'? I asked that those hard done by post some personal evidence, which is easily found (if it exists).

It's not garbage. You just outlined your hoops again. I'm not jumping through them--for reasons you can sympathize with, and I'm sure there are others like me.

And honestly, I just don't like your attitude, which is actually not a very helpful one. I can see why you're so defensive of SO and Wikipedia.

> > people might be reluctant to jump through the precise hoops you've laid out for them. > > Garbage. What 'precise hoops'?

Might be worth asking yourself whether "Garbage" is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion here. In this thread you stress that you have "a perfectly open mind" and yet when people disagree you seem to take it extremely personally.

'garbage' because those claimed hoops were never listed, strangely enough. Even when I asked for them.

> you stress that you have "a perfectly open mind" and yet when people disagree you seem to take it extremely personally

I do not take it personally. I asked for evidence. Very little was forthcoming. I've an open mind to opinions backed up by evidence. Opinion without some basis is useless or worse. QV. anti-vaxxers, chem-trailers etc. Or do you support these people's views just because they opine so? Please answer this point specifically.

I'm not supporting their views at all. You said someone's comment was garbage, I asked whether that was a constructive contribution and you assume from that that I'm taking sides here, which is an example of what I'm calling "taking it personally".

Civil and open dialogue on HN is important. We can disagree about things without using dismissive language of that kind.

there is nothing more frustrating than googling something, and having the first result be your exact question marked as a dupe where the pretendedly "duped-from" question is off enough that it is useless for your actual problem;

Yes, this has happened to me quite often.

Oddly, Google seems to throw up SO search results a lot less often for me these days though, so I don't get send there in the first place.

You do get one bit of information from this: You learn about a question you definitely can't get the answer to on SO!

Not that odd. I'm not annoyed enough to keep a log of "I was frustrated by SO again today" just for the opportunity to win an internet argument about SO a few weeks later.

I asked "if you say it's happened to you..." therefore you don't need a log. Just log in to SO and bingo all your Q's with their A's are available. It's not difficult.

"post a link so we can judge" is precisely the attitude on SO that I find reprehensible.

Show something to support your accusation of an entire community (or 2) seems entirely reasonable.

"I have no problem with x. Prove to me that you have a problem with x.", seems entirely reasonable to you?

Yes. You post a question of yours that's been unfairly shut down. If you have no such question you clearly don't have a problem with x.

I've never had a question closed, but I have had to deal with condescending responses. If I've gotten too much shit on a question, I usually delete it after I've gotten the information I need, rendering the evidence unavailable (even to myself as the poster after a window of time).

You (claim to) delete useful answers, then complain about SO's behaviour? Wow.

Stack Overflow curates its public-facing content, and so do I, when using real-name accounts. Given a choice between being seen taking shit from someone, investing time in arguing with that person, or just erasing the exchange altogether, the third option is sometimes the most expedient. I don't do it often.

Ideally people would just be polite, and questions could just be answered by anyone who cared to answer them, with low-scoring exchanges de-emphasized instead of being shut down.

Do you prefer avoiding hard evidence and instead forming opinions based on a comment's emotional reach?

How is me having an issue with SO overall, any different then someone not have any issues with SO overall? One requires hard evidence and one does not?

Why is the burden of proof is on them, not you?

Prove there are no questions where someone has been treated unfairly.

I posit you cannot.

Person A: I have been treated unfairly.

Person B: I hear this often, but no one ever offers any proof of it; I don’t believe any of these people, and posit that they are all wrong.

You tell me who seems unreasonable here.

I personally have had fights with moderators, and took my complaints to meta because they were behaving inappropriately.

Now, I cannot believe you can honestly say you’ve never seen that, because https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/92064/is-there-some..., its a damn FAQ question.

So... say what you will. I support the parent comment; you’re being totally unreasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com