They wanted to create an "encyclopedia" using a Q&A site. To do that they banned duplicate questions (and therefore answers). That means that if you search for a topic you're going to time-travel back to the oldest point when that was first asked, get ten year old answers, and that's it.
But technology changes, so an answer from ten years ago might be very different from an answer today. But SO is a really bad version of Wikipedia, so once something is "the solution" it is now that forever. Sure, you can tack on a comment or additional non-solution answers, but the site actively penalises you for doing so.
So, yeah, in answer to your question. Between SO's wildly out-of-date content, toxic community, and Google search results also becoming worse year upon year, it is a difficult site to use, or even want to use.
But I feel like there's a lot of 'bullying' now. Bullying as in people who try to make themselves feel in control by downvoting things. There was one case where someone decided to downvote one of my questions, then ran around my profile downvoting every question that wasn't upvoted.
HN also feels a lot like this. People who sort of try to prop themselves up by pushing others down. They seem to target the ones that have the least retribution - the protection of anonymity and not losing points off their downvote.
It's different to the old days, where if someone posted a bad question or answer, we would give them advice, or edit their post to be clearer and more polite. The goal was to help people up, not push them down.
The other Stack Exchanges are nice, though. So it has little to do with the model itself.
Fwiw, hn has become very snarky too. So maybe it's a sign of the times.
Stack Overflow wanted to create a wiki of questions and answers, when in reality all initial users wanted was a dedicated programming Q&A site that would answer their questions. The wiki aspect was a side goal of this.
Today, Stack Overflow has the answers to many questions, and due to the similarity in many questions already out there it is incredibly difficult to get an answer without some level of gatekeeping - whether it's from the users/moderators, or from the system itself trying to stop duplication.
IMO, Stack Overflow has failed at being a wiki, because they refuse to allow duplicates. If I were in charge of Stack Overflow, I would actively encourage duplicates, and build the Q&A system around merging duplicates over having one definitive answer. Sure, maybe the world doesn't need 50 different perspectives on how to get a Mongo collection out of Meteor, but a smart system would turn those individual contributions into one master question, asked by 50 people, with numerous answers that work in certain situations, or specific versions. Until SO consider this approach, I can only see the distrust towards them growing.
The closed as duplicate or off-topic is very annoying. I do put in some time into moderating the moderation with reopen votes or edit suggestions.
I especially love discussions in less popular topics where they can run more deep and insightful at times.
The worst kind of answers are those who just post a code snippet without any context.
I tried contributing but it seems like everything is answered now except for the most corner-case things. I feel bad for people asking questions because they almost all get downvoted.
There was a time when it was useful but I agree with what another poster said: it's stuck in time and it shows.
SO is a very helpful website and companies are not even aware enough how much it helps them and how much money it saves globally.
I loved SO when it first started - now it’s mostly just annoying whenever SO answers show up in search results.
Anecdotally, I've lost count the number of Closed or Duplicate answers were better and more helpful than the canonical one.