IE Web Development Support Moving to Stack Overflow
social.msdn.microsoft.com
social.msdn.microsoft.com
That's not to say Stack Overflow isn't without its problems, but it's more the hostility (something which we're trying to address[1]) that's the problem than the stance against active discussion.
[1]: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/240839/the-new-new-...
However, I wish there was a place as fantastically focused on good discussion.
It does this:
http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/43179/how-can-i-r...
And it's officially supported:
https://blog.quora.com/Making-Sharing-Better
But you still need to sign up/in in to casually browse.
>And is this a bad practice?
It's pretty user hostile which is why I personally never used the site.
It's certainly staying on track, but it's worth noting that many track-related analogies are pejoratives that focus on the way that you can't steer vehicles that go on tracks. I suspect an inordinate amount of incoming traffic to Stack Exchange is for information that only Stack Exchange apparently thinks (not just by the closing, but by the choice of words in explaining the reason for the closing) is not particularly valuable. Methinks that's evidence that the community governance has become an echo chamber - otherwise one should think that the people running this company would have identified a gap in the market that they could be exploiting by now.
Closed question: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/2254/what-are...
Open Question: http://www.slant.co/topics/1150/~what-are-the-best-keyboards...
I removed that option, thanks for pointing that out. We have a long way to go on the moderation side of things.
Anything else you don't like/wish we had?
- it's a tad confusing that in a list with questions every question has 3 links. Two of them are the same (queston title itself 'See All Options') so I'd remove the latter as it doesn't really add anything useful imo.
- it's not clear to me what the 'Best' sorting option means
- a built-in way to link questions wouldn't be bad. For example there's a 'What are the best over-ear headphones under $200?' but also a 'What are the best over/on ear headphones around $300?' and in the latter the Sennheiser HD598 wins while it doesn't in the former. Something like a 'This is Related To' button which then pops up something similar to SO's duplicate question window.
- which reminds me: not sure if it can be done but eventually you'll probably need a way to remove or rather merge duplicates
- just figured that after adding a pro, I still have to vote for it. It would make sense to do this automatically?
>Only some minor points, for the rest I really like the interface and functionality:
Thanks :) Do you like what we did with the sources? (example: http://bit.ly/1va9Aj6. The favicons act like tabs if you didn't notice)
- it's a tad confusing that in a list with questions every question has 3 links. Two of them are the same (queston title itself 'See All Options') so I'd remove the latter as it doesn't really add anything useful imo.
Good point. I'll double check with the analytics in the morning and see if we can simplify.
- it's not clear to me what the 'Best' sorting option means
It's very opaque at the moment as I'm experimenting with various sorting algorithms almost weekly. Once I nail something down I'll work on the UI transparency.
- a built-in way to link questions wouldn't be bad. For example there's a 'What are the best over-ear headphones under $200?' but also a 'What are the best over/on ear headphones around $300?' and in the latter the Sennheiser HD598 wins while it doesn't in the former. Something like a 'This is Related To' button which then pops up something similar to SO's duplicate question window.
We're building this! Not only "this is related to" but the ability to easily sync/add pro's from one occurrence of an option to another. (Yep, I'm aware of the potential issues with changing context, it's not going to be an auto sync, more like "suggested pros/cons/sources")
- which reminds me: not sure if it can be done but eventually you'll probably need a way to remove or rather merge duplicates
This is part of the same flagging project I'm in the middle of.
- just figured that after adding a pro, I still have to vote for it. It would make sense to do this automatically?
I keep going back and forth on this. A lot of people add pros/cons to be good community members, not necessarily due to them personally agreeing with them. I think it will end up being a checkbox that's enabled by default.
Thanks so much for taking the time to help us out! I'll keep working away until you describe Slant as "amazing" instead of "ok" :)
(btw if you want to help us shape the product even further we have a meta.slant.co)
oh yes, that's nice. Bug (on FF) though: the favicon disappears after having clicked on a tabs.
Your effort/enthusiasm sounds good for the rest :]. I'll check meta.
But why are we talking about shoulds that will never get done when a really good answer is already here? You've got users actively providing good content and your response is to reprimand them and tell them that content should be over here instead? You know, we have these things called links on the world wide web. The internet isn't running out of them.
Sometimes it feels like the mods are building a really tidy card catalog at the expense of the books in the collection.
Reasons:
- Gets rid of the "This was closed because of trigger-happy
moderators failing to distinguish between 'similar' and
'identical'" problem by making that situation impossible.
- Improves answer discovery for users: If Google gets you
to almost, but not quite, the right question,
cross-referencing gets you the rest of the way.
- Improves answer discovery for users: Maybe the best answer
today isn't the same as the best answer 5 years ago.
- Improves gamification: Rewards are the lifeblood of
a site like Stack Overflow. A way of dealing with
duplicate questions that rewards users for
cross-referencing them is infinitely more in line with
SE's basic idea than one that punishes them with
public shaming.
- Reduces opportunity for petty bureaucrats to take root.
- Represents a more thoughtful, measured way of thinking
about software engineering. Many questions really can
have more than one correct answer, or the correct answer
can depend on subtle details. Which answer gets the
green check mark may have as much to do with the situation
of the asker than the quality of the answer.(Yes, I think SO looks like a bug tracker used as a discussion forum. They're certainly very close, including hostile project owners, WONTFIX's, etc.)
An alternative to shaming is that you could just accept this great new content that a volunteer is giving you.
Whenever a question gets a new post it gets bumped up to the top of the activity again - the same amount of possible attention as when an hour old question gets a new answer too.
What it really comes down to, though, is that when somebody asks a new question, I want to answer their new question, with all of its subtleties, in response to its particular phrasing, in its context.
Edit: In fact, I should admit that I usually only put the effort into answering old questions when it's something that has a lot of views. It's an indication that the question is linked somewhere prominent or is ranking well for some search terms. Those questions are worth putting the time in for. Most aren't.
Closing with a link to the original is cross-referencing in a way that does just the opposite: It decreases the vitality of the community by taking away opportunities for newcomers to take part in the gamification feature.
Let's frame the issue another way: What's Stack Overflow really for? Is it for people to ask questions and get answers? Or is it just a gamified Wikipedia?
SO has hurt the industry more than helped, I believe.
If a question gets asked more, maybe having more indexed landing pages for it for search engines will make it easier to find. It seems to be a popular question after all! Why limit yourself to just one answer?
Theoretically it's better to have all the answers in one place instead of scattered about, so that you can compare and contrast them. In practice it's far from ideal. Often a new question will generate a fresh take on an answer, and the diversity would be welcome.
If there's a subtle difference between the "duplicate" question and the older one, you can edit it to highlight the difference. Unfortunately that's hard to do, and you're unlikely to get the reopen votes even if you do a good job.
If the sites were merged, this sense of community and ownership would be lost. This is why each site is separate, with a style somewhat picked/influenced by the site's community, with ads chosen by the community, and rules drawn up by the community. Stack Exchange is the sum of many small (and a few big) communities, not one big one.
Although I do agree I've noticed a change in community tone and tolerance that i don't like either; I think that's just the nature of it though, of any community. I don't know that it HAS to be that way, but that seems to be the default behavior.
SO is a great site for the first five years of a developer's career. After that, it's value wanes as the questions become less "how do I do this?" and more "how should I do this?"
The problem is, being a good site for both things would be difficult. There are plenty of places out there that cater to extended discussion within expert groups. Forums have been around in one form or other almost since the dawn of the web. The problem with these is that they're bad at one-shot Q&A (as the answer to a question might be pages after it was asked, or not there at all, or out of date, and it might take you a long time to work this out). This failing is exactly what Stack Overflow is about, and exactly why it's not good for deeper engineering questions.
I'm unfamiliar with the state of IE Web Dev support at the moment, is it currently a good forum for extended discussion?
And I can understand that. There exist a lot of places on the web to discuss technology (e.g., the one we’re commenting on now). Forums, IRC, blogs, and social media site have been around for a long time. They all sucked as a place to get answers. SO/SE built a better solution, and part of that was a strong anti-discussion bias. It worked, and there is now a great place on the internet to get answers instead of the endless morass of vBulletin sites. I can understand them not wanting to mess with a successful formula.
Eventually I gave up and to this day yet I am still unclear what is considered on/off-topic on P.SE.
I consider myself a power user and I already have one account that was "suspended" due to too many downvoted questions of mine.
Perhaps this is why the article mentions using SO for Web Developer support and not end-user support?
The bottom line is that it's still a really important archive of software coding. I'd say 80+ percent of the issues I face in coding, someone has seen before - and therefore, a place like SO could have solved my issue with almost zero time wasted.
It's terrible.
That said, anyone wants to start a site oriented specifically towards discussion and discovering new solutions? Just need a workable idea on how to keep discussions from deteriorating into holy flame wars or getting philosophical.
It's not the discussion Stack Overflow seeks to squelch; it's the noise. Unfortunately, discussion is one of the things that attracts noisy posts, so it's not exactly something that's actively encouraged.
I find voting systems tend to squelch most of the idiots on technically focused forums.
Stack Overflow was designed so that the next person with the same question could find the answer more easily. The next person could avoid having to go through Sun's Java forums, and CodeRanch, and /r/Java, and /r/JavaHelp and the comments of someone's blog post, and ... Too many places with too much tangental knowledge that wasn't well indexed. Despite the idiots and trolls having posts removed,
With Stack Overflow, one knows that if they ask a question there (admittedly, that fits within the focus and quality guidelines) they will get an answer - not someone commenting on another comment that is indistinguishable from an answer (comments vs answers). And if they search Stack Overflow, and find the question that has an answer - it is an answer. That is the key value proposition of Stack Overflow in that the next person who has the same question as you do can find it easily.
The people who tend to rise in a site that's organized that way are people who devote the most time to volunteering for the site. And volunteering for the site means spending a lot of time reeeeaallllyy focused on a glowing screen. Meaning people who naturally rise to the top in such a community are people who've chosen to devote large portions of their free time to content, not people.
There are other reasons too, but those are the biggest ones, I think.
Apple, OTOH, embraced open-source from the beginning (for a given value of embrace). Lots of open-source projects that go fine as long as you do it the Apple way and don't mind them passive-aggressively slowly pulling away, but not enough to kill the project.
I love me some Apple, but let us not pretend that they're saints compared to MS when it comes to actual, existing projects.
They've been doing things like this for years now. I think it's more that the tech community is starting to take note of these things that they are doing.
That said, I think Microsoft is going to be in an adapt or die philosophy for the next few months, and I think this is one of those decisions. They know they need to foster a community that anyone can be a part of.
Open Source move? Check. More Open Source? Check. Stack Exchange? Check.
The only thing this piece is missing is a better hardware platform, so I'm going to be very interested in seeing what Microsoft can produce in the coming months.
Why? Honestly, I think the Surface tablets and Nokia's Lumia devices are really high quality.
I agree, I would buy a surface pro if I could get it without windows.
Obviously, Apple has achieved this. Google Play has had some rough spots but is definitely a close second. Then there's the mortal wounds; the Amazon, Samsung and Microsoft App Stores,
That leaves Microsoft as the only company that designs Hardware/OS but still has a terrible App Store. In fact, scams and misleading apps were so bad[0] Microsoft actually had to address them[1].
Don't get me wrong though, if the App Store were better, I would love me some Lumia, but really, when Hardware and OS become a toss-up, really the next thing to look at is the App Store. Microsoft has some great momentum in the right direction now though and I would love for that to continue.
[0] http://www.howtogeek.com/194993/the-windows-store-is-a-cessp... [1] http://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2014/08/27/how-were-ad...
Again, this is all in general, applies the most to bigger apps and/or apps that rely heavily on fast performance or access to specific native APIs and based on one mobile devs experience.
It is exciting to see that for most things that are somewhere between a blog and a small to non-trivial application, just focusing on making sure your site/small app works well on most mobile browsers is sufficient. You can also usually wrap things up in each platforms' version of a WebView if you want to get your app/site listed on each store for that extra exposure. Again though, you have to be very careful doing that for the same UI/UX concerns mentioned earlier.
Getting away from the more technical aspects, just looking at WP market share vs Android/iOS means that even if a business wants to hit every platform, they're still going to start with iOS/Android and making sure they have a good mobile site experience before looking at WP. Add in the cost of finding a dev to work on your WP build (or assigning one from another team to it) and you end up with only the largest entities having the man-power and expertise to be able to justify a priority list that includes executing nice implementations across all platforms, including WP.
The answer is attached to the bottom (full length, no see more or anything) of the question and is then repeated again. Threaded comments are also very poorly formatted, and they hit a limit pretty soon from what I've seen.
StackOverflow should speak up against companies doing this.
1: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/30187/what-do-icons-...
If you want to go further than that, there are various levels of sponsorship possible for a tag, and [internet-explorer] has been sponsored at some level for at least a year. These grant you various advertising and branding privileges, but do not otherwise affect how questions are asked/answered within that tag.
Disclaimer: I work for Stack Exchange but am not involved in the sales or marketing side of things.
We do have fairly strict guidelines for companies that want to do this however: http://stackoverflow.com/help/product-support
I wasn't happy with the lack of response from their support team so I posted a message saying "What the heck do I have to do to get an answer from you guys on your product?". What do you think the response from SO was? People yelled "it's volunteers here choosing to answer questions on their own time! You aren't allowed to demand a response on SO, who do yo think you are?". Or something to that effect anyway.
Corporate support channels do not belong on a site that is rigorously and outspokenly community driven.
If such a thing is to be allowed then there must be formal escalation procedures to be able to push questions up the line the the company that has offloaded its support to SO.
The whole thing just doesn't fit.
As such, SO is the best support you're ever going to get for Google products.
(Thanks for the down votes - am I wrong? I doubt it ;) )
The precise inverse of my experience trying to get support from them.
MS has realized that they can save money and provide effectively the same support (since nobody used their support anyway) by recognizing the third party tool.
Now moving to a dedicated Stack Exchange site would be fine (like AskUbuntu). The software is OK, it's just the idiotic mods and hostile users that make SO suck.
I asked a question on Server Fault, and 5 years later someone added a helpful, perfect answer (a new library was available that did exactly what I needed). That answer was down voted, and then the user was chastised by someone, telling them off for answering an old question. Bizarre.
I find this hard to believe. Link?
There are a lot of people on Stack Exchange. There's a surprisingly strict adherence to the rules, but it doesn't mean everyone thinks and acts to the same way. Nothing should come as a surprise!
One of the problems with these types of questions is that they attract "lists of things" answers which are mostly only backed up by links to external sites. Eventually these links rot away and the answers never get any proper love to keep things fresh.
Early on SO/SF/SU tried to combat this:
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-sho...
The chastisement was probably unfair because John Ranger did attempt to summarise the linked landing page content, however the question probably should have been closed according to [0] to deter more link-only answers:
[0[: http://serverfault.com/help/on-topic
and it is not about…
Product, service, or learning material recommendations
YMMV whether you think this is fair nor not, but it's the site/network rules.
Launch announcement: http://fourlightyears.blogspot.com.au/2014/11/notconstructiv...
HN post from over a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6062876
So the trade off (going where the users are vs. the assets) doesn't seem that bad.
It's a shame that the SO community is constantly killing interesting and useful questions, just because "they don't match their format".
I agree that is baffling the way interesting questions are always getting quashed.
Note that I've never been in charge of a large product like this, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
And IE, up to IE8, used to require a lot of workarounds, so pretty much the whole community has already turned to SO for debugging.
But lets not kid ourselves. It's still Microsoft. In my eyes, they have one of the worst track records and it will take a monumental change for my perspective to change to positive; I do not know what it would truly take to change it.
They have played the evil corporation card for so long, I worry if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. But I welcome hearing good news from redmond, and hope it keeps coming.
Microsoft, as a company that makes great software, is what I've always wanted them to be. But they've been so caught up on their own platforms and solutions that have run counter to that.
In a version of the future, it could happen. There could be a day where I, as a RoR developer, consider using MSSQL as my database, because it manages to be better than postgres or mysql, and has approachable OS/support licensing. Where I write code in their frameworks because they're better than Xcode and output code that runs on all platforms. Where I use IE because it renders the best and fastest and has the best inspector (and obviously, zero IE specific code required; and starts running on linux and OSX).
So it could happen. It's a sharp, sharp pull up from their current path, but there is a path to me advocating for them and what they build.
Still an interesting move from Microsoft. Projects hosted on github, open source, versions of the .NET runtime for mac and linux, embracing docker, node.js and avoiding getting in fights over front end frameworks... this really seems like they're trying to turn a new page.
And I'm not coming at this from a malicious Microsoft angle, they are just in the same league as Adobe and Oracle in that they maximize revenue by dominating markets and crushing competition to force users onto their proprietary platforms. It is inherent to how their principle earning divisions operate.
LinkedIn API support moved to Stack Overflow too. Same timing might not be coincidence.
Don't bother to report a bug to anything that doesn't offer tracking. It's pointless.
It is an excellent publicity stunt, though. It'll certainly fuel more of the "Microsoft has turned over a new leaf" discussion, but in the grand scheme of things with all their previous announcements like open-sourcing the C# compiler and .NET platform, this is a pretty negligible move.
Being honest this may not be following guidelines - so I deleted question. Maybe someone should create Stackoverflow like site for more open questions.
Regarding IE itself: strongly disagree - marking most of new tech as "under consideration" is poor communication management at best - if they are not interested in sharing anything they should add another status. This is misleading.
As for Web Components, we're actively discussing the related specs with other browser vendors, and trying to approach the topic as appropriately as is possible.
We certainly desire to be open and up-front; if you can identify ways in which we can improve our side of the discussion, we would love to know.
I get that they need a web browser they can control and distribute with their OS, but why a rendering engine? Especially one that, in my region (SF bay area), runs natively on fewer than 1% of the dev machines I see out there. If somebody were inclined to test their site for IE they'd most likely have to go through the hassle of setting up a VM running Windows just to do it. More and more, I'm hearing people just say "I don't test my work in IE" and being fine with it.
Is there a good argument for developing their own rendering engine, given the existence of two really good open source engines?
Even now, IE11 and 12 are dramatically faster than Chrome on my laptop in terms of how quickly pages load, scroll, etc. Even though I don't use IE as my default browser, I think I probably continue to benefit from their performance work.
Regardless, Trident isn't going anywhere since Windows Store apps built with HTML/CSS/JS rely on IE's rendering engine to run.
The Bay Area is not the world. Plenty of corporates - MS core market - run IE.
Also, by bringing in a rendering engine, IE will never be better than the competition.
The announcement makes it seem that they are proud of how many questions are out there about IE issues.
* tag [internet-explorer]: 27,934 questions
* tag [google-chrome]: 28,153 questions
Since the number of questions is your metric for attributing shame, that surely imply that chrome is much worse than IE, especially considering the long legaccy and larger install base of IE vs Chrome...
Or, I don't know, could it be possible that the number of questions reflects more than just how bad a piece of software is?
SO is 6 years old
[google-chrome] [google-chrome-{version}] [google-chrome-extensions] (4,194 questions) [Chromium] (893 questions) + Chrome on Linux, Mac and Windows.
Chrome also contains extensions, that would explain why there are a lot of more questions about "Chrome" + i think more tech-savaged people prefer Chrome to IE (because of dev tools), so SO wouldn't be a good reference for an objective market share view.