It's clear Google Search algorithm is favoring other websites. And probably AI and the new LLM models are being another reason devs will stop going directly to StackOverflow.
What do you think? Will StackOverflow keep up, or will slowly dye?
I got an email a few months ago that one of my answers had been edited. It turns out that someone who—as best as I can tell—hasn't ever actually answered a question had reworded my answer, removed a ton of context, and in effect, made my answer incorrect.
I immediately changed it back. The person who edited my answer was doing this to farm points. With no understanding of the problem or my solution, they were racking up points simply by "cleaning up" answers.
I'm not going to say that this is killing SO. But it does seem like there are some perverse incentives that make it easy for folks to accrue points without actually being competent. And as long as SO points are considered a sign of competence, people will keep doing it.
Around 2017-18 I was pretty involved in the bootcamp/learning programming community, and I noticed my fellow teachers recommending students to "do not ask question on StackOverflow, if you have an issue it' better to ask in Github to the library author, people are more polite and you get better answers".
As an Open Source dev myself, this left a slightly bad taste, but couldn't exactly disagree since SO culture IS brutal (specially in the tight timeframe). I did explain when I could that the best is actually to learn to ask the right question, and that often this is part of the debug experience for yourself, but I was but a little pebble against the stream. This had probably gone for a while, and it was then also when we saw a lot of talk about burnout in open source devs. At some point it seemed there was someone burning out every other week!
Everyone can put 2 and 2 together to see what was happening; low-quality questions were not being asked in StackOverflow anymore and now they were dumped to random OSS devs who didn't sign for it and were forced to move from a collaborative environment that was Github back then to a more customer-facing environment it became.
The "interesting" part is what happened as a consequence. Today if you do Open Source, become semi-famous and want to continue, it's pretty clear that you have to have a thick skin and do a combination of: just shut down ALL issues/support in popular repos[1], or get used to tell people NO quick and easily, or take regular breaks, or I guess be part of a big company being paid to deal with issues as part of your job.
If they can find any fault in a question or answer they will take the opportunity to do so.
If you give a correct answer but don't include a significant amount of explanation, it will be marked down.
Often times I see perfectly valid questions and people refuse to answer them but will only respond with a comment.
I just wanted to try to help some people. I don't have time to write Wiki articles or deal with assholes who have nothing better to do than to do than try to find fault with a question or answer.
Also, a lot of the time the answer is to use some library or module and you can get attacked for even acknowledging that modules exist.
Many have notes that they are out of date in sub-comments. But its hard to be noticed against a 700 upvote selected top answer.
In my opinion, this has led to two types of questions being asked on StackOverflow: very basic ones that the asker could have easily found in the documentation, and very advanced ones. Unfortunately, the number of basic questions far outweighs the number of advanced ones. As a result, the platform is losing popularity as users become increasingly less willing to answer questions that could have been easily researched.
It could be argued that the vast majority of questions are deserving of downvotes, but that itself is a problem and a turn-off and the definition of what qualifies as a good or bad question could be adjusted so that the majority aren't downvoted.
"Punishing" people for asking questions that would when the site was new be showered in upvotes feels like kicking out the ladder from under those of us who climbed it.
The community died many years ago. The company itself died a few years ago selling out. The value of StackOverflow is dying as we speak.
The original value was in the community. Sadly the system of moderation was not self correcting enough to change with time. No amount of democracy can solve the toxicity without new people in those positions of power. When people quote the community as being "toxic", you usually look to a number of rotten apples.
https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/01/22/the-loop-2-understandi...
Like what's famous at DARPA, there are short tenures to positions of power. StackOverflow could've adopted a similar model for their product and moderation teams(including community ones) to bring in regular positive change. The technical talent was already top-tier and created one hell of a marvel of infrastructure excellence.
I've asked a couple of questions I'd hope would be fairly simple (like how to run a program in cgroups v2), set a big bounty on them, and never got a single useful answer.
- for reference I land on official documentation
- for issues I usually land on GitHub issues and source code
- for random stuff I still hit SO - like some SQL problem, CSS, algorithm implementation
- for design stuff I land on blog posts
Personally I see stack overflow value reduce with good reference documentation and GitHub issues/open source dev discussions.
The fact that SO is purely QA and closes opinionated/discussion topics makes it less valuable. It made sense in the past when you couldn't communicate with devs so easily or when reference documentation wasn't that good. Especially for closed source stuff.
I got to top 10% about ten years ago, mostly through basic questions and answers that you could easily do when StackOverflow started. I haven’t touched my account in years, and I am now in top 8% with about 5000 reputation, because old questions and answers keep getting upvotes.
I would think few people have much incentive to try and gain StackOverflow reputation, so what keeps StackOverflow going?
But like many others, I've stopped contributing to it. The last time I tried to answer a question, it was marked down. My answer was correct, concise, to SO standards etc, but because the question was poorly worded and formatted, I was seen to be 'encouraging' it.
I appreciate the need for high quality questions. But burying correct answers is completely ridiculous.
If that is the case then new questions are mostly on new frameworks and new languages which are often niche tags and don't have as much engagement as the popular tags once had.
Almost all questions newbies could ask are ripe for getting closed as duplicate and complicated questions are rarely getting answers since they require too much context to fit into SO's format.
People used to make 30,000 reputation out of a single answer on an extremely basic topic like "how do I create a variable in X".
Now all the questions are either duplicates getting closed or hard questions on very specific topic, that, even if you can answer, will get you 10 reputation, and maybe 50 over the years.
On the other hand, the spam of stupid, badly formatted or undersearched questions is intense.
So StackOverflow has basically become a platform where contributors have nothing better to do than moderation, for which there is no reputation reward.
I know someone will tell me it's not all about reputation, but I don't believe it one second.
Toxic deletionists are part of the problem, yes. But they are the literal dregs at the bottom of the bottle when all the good experts have left or burnt out or converted to deletionists. There's no way to find great questions that would make their talents shine.
And here we come to the next point - the company behind SO stopped investing dev time in improving the core experience. Yeah, they were also overrun by vitriolic politically motivated folks, but this is only a lateral plot line. Rearranging CSS, coming up with brand-new bug-ridden editors, concocting impossible get-rich-quick subsites parasitizing on the main site's popularity against the opinions of old-timers - here are just a few examples of brainless PM activities over the years.
As a consequence, Stack Overflow is dead. As in, still twitching from a combination of ideological / greed-fueled Cordyceps firing up random neurons. But yes, mostly dead.
It’s possible that new content is getting lower quality on SO, but for any area where a 10 or 15 year old answer is as relevant today as it was when it was written, it’s still a goldmine.
In what universe? I feel this is one of the strongest examples of selection bias at work that I've ever seen, to be honest.
Stackoverflow comes up for every single thing I search, lol.
However I agree new answers of quality are rarer. The site users are more concerned with identifying duplicates or even any overlap and closing things rather than providing useful information sometimes.
Also, most subreddits accepts posting detailed "Am I doing this wrong?" questions instead of only perfectly asked ones that have never been asked before. I find it a better balance than SO removing a question I spent 30 minutes formatting because someone asked a tangentially related question 5 years ago.
Yes SO is looking at altering its colours to improve accessibility https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/386102/accessibilit...
1. It understands the versions more clearly, it won't generate the code for Bootstrap 2 when my question is about Bootstrap 5
2. Asking follow up questions is easy. So the code didn't work. I tell it that and instantly it tells me what I need to do to fix it (leave missing config file, etc) or gives me an alternate.
3. Its answers instantaneously except when their site is down.
4. Its more customised as the answer is not a generic question posted an year ago.
5. It spans multiple domains of knowledge, so if lets say I get an error curl.so not found, it can tell me what I must run on the command line to fix that on my system too.
6. Its so much faster because there are no stupid questions. It's just like typing on google vs SO where you need to proof read and make sure its not a duplicate.
Take it as you might, but I think the main reason many people were answering questions in the first place is the feeling of competition and wanting to establish oneself as someone with knowledge. This included gaining high scores and for some reason correlated with being quite blunt in the comments. But SO changes a few years ago made it so that asking questions got the same amount of points as answering them. Also people were forced to play nice with the new-comers who didn't even bother reading the rules of the site. And with these changes the whole atmosphere changed from being "a database of questions and answers" to just a site where people ask for free help.
And there it’s easier and quicker to get a specialised reply, with less judgement or responses like “already answered in thread X”
Ex, when I first started, I would ask things like how do I do string interpolation in shell scripting? Now I have more questions that require considerations from different angles such as why should I use redux over react contexts? how has it been for people with large teams?
The point system also doesn't mean much. I have over 60k points from just asking basic programming questions from when I was in college.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
SimilarWeb shows them as having a very high proportion of incoming traffic coming from search
https://www.similarweb.com/website/stackoverflow.com/#traffi...
RTM -> SO question (not found) -> IRC/Discord -> post question on SO.
As opposed to this:
LLM -> RTM -> SO (maybe post a question)
Simply has SO earlier in the pipeline. The later does not render it obsolete (yet?) from what I can tell.
If a simple annotation to how the LLM got the answer is deployed I think that is where SO will be visited only to ask questions rather than find an answer (still not obsolete).
P.S. this is speculative at best at this stage. SO can be rendered obsolete by some hidden side effect of LLMs/search engines
Im trying to put together a small project using a raspberry pi and figured the subreddit would be a good place to start. I couldnt find good recent answers so I make a short post, what pi would best handle quality video streaming, best ways to go about it ect. Deleted because I was supposed to ask it in a specific thread. Ok sure whatever. So I ask that question in the proper QnA thread and only response I get plainly and unhelpfully says to look at an faq question which dosent answer my question at all. I feel like if your going to have and run a community because your passionate about something, and offer help about that thing, you could probably do better than leading me down the "your question is to generic/easy for me to bother" like an automated help line.
SO feels like that to me, you need to go in with a "worthy" question to get any kind of help and not just stomped down
If you do maintenance programming you always have little questions like "How do you find the length of a string in Python?" and all you need is "len(s)". On Stackoverflow there is a discussion even if there is nothing to discuss, fortunately it is very unlikely that alternative answers like "sum(1 for c in s)" will get near the top but sifting through a lot of wrong answers and garbage is worse in the long term than learning your way around the official documentation.
It's highly unlikely that StackOverflow will slowly die. It's a very MOATY service: strong band, and network effects.
GPT gives better answers 2/3 of the time. It makes up some answers, but often it's more helpful and accurate than what you find on SO anyway.
Gone are the days of custom documentation layouts and designs that are hit or miss.
When I go to SO, I frequently find the answer is not what I was looking for and I've probably missed some keyword to get where I'm going - so I'm back on Google within seconds.
Google doesn't need much smarts to see I'm bouncing off of SO and hardly ever sticking around - if this is a common pattern then it's not favouring other websites that provide a more sticky experience - implication being that answered my question as I didn't return to further refine it.
It just doesn’t feel as useful as it did.
And for most programming questions I go to ChatGPT or GitHub search (which is utter garbage but I think a new version is coming).
https://ai.stackexchange.com/questions/38660/was-chatgpt-tra...
I wonder what its contribution was to chatgpt’s ability to answer coding questions. And what happens if chatgpt (or similar) displaces it.
Also interesting is that SO has banned chatgpt from answering but I suspect that will be another shadow “AI vs humans” war.
HN was the nicest to me so far, then Reddit, and SO ranks the last.
There are a handful of decent[ish] tags
Most of it is total garbage
I had searched the same thing on google and stackoverflow and found nothing.
I can’t stand these people.
It would be nice if SO would go back to evolving Q&A and stop letting toxic losers become mods.
The current situation... If you're a noob who's learning, then your question will be downvoted to hell and u will be blocked as question is deemed low quality..
If you're a pro, then your question will be about something obscure which the mods don't understand, and also will require a more nuanced answer, so it will be downvoted to hell and u will be blocked.
So it's aimed at mid-level devs to ask things with certain answers, the kind of answer which would most likely be found in documentation. So the people who require help/answers the most are kicked off, whereas people who need answers/help the least are encouraged.