Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

24
  • 15
    Weird objection. Regardless of the theoretical implications, folks asking questions based on actual problems that they face are sorta the bread'n'butter of this whole juggernaut. Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 22:28
  • 16
    @Shog9: I'm looking deeper. Building a repository of Q&A (so that future readers can benefit from the actual problems that the OP faced) is the bread and butter of this whole juggernaut, and I feel daily like a virulent lack of comprehension therein is leading to a downwards spiral in quality. Thus any little hint that reinforces said misconception would be a bad thing. Or if there is a new policy that Stack Overflow is now for the OP alone, turning it into a personal helpdesk service, then there ought to be some announcement to that effect. Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 22:50
  • 9
    I think you're confusing the end and the means. The end is indeed re-usable questions and answers; the means is mostly enlightened self-interest, particularly when it comes to askers. The trick is to find ways of using what folks are already motivated to do in ways that benefit others. Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 22:57
  • 9
    @Shog9: I'm not "confusing" them. I'm presenting my opinion that the choice of means have an effect on how effectively we can achieve our end, in the long run. In this case, the text (the means) runs the risk of mistraining site newcomers, who will over time contribute yet more low quality content accordingly, leading, ultimately, to a more literal "end" than you wanted. :P It's a subtle and more complex issue than you are going for here, sure, but I don't think that makes it unimportant (nor worthy of being summarily written off as "confusion"). Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 23:03
  • 16
    Lemme try to put this a different way: I strongly doubt that a significant portion of the folks asking questions today or at any point in the past 6 years are doing so because they wish to build a repository of Q&A. As much as I'd love to believe thousands of people decide every day to make up questions they hope will be interesting to others, I've seen very little evidence of this. You're afraid we're going to inadvertently discourage a motivation that doesn't exist. OTOH, if you have suggestions for guidance that'll help folks write up their problems to be reusable, I'm all ears... Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 23:19
  • 2
    @Shog9: That's a reasonable counter-argument. I still propose that you run the risk of making the newcomer's eventual realisation of what this site is (and the corresponding leap towards high question quality, reusability and MCVEness in their contributions) come somewhat later than it otherwise might. Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 23:55
  • 4
    I would think that people come here to have their questions answered. 99 times out of 100 they don't care about how we run the site, they just want an answer to their question. It's the 1 in 100 that stick around and learn what it means for a question to be 'off-topic' or 'duplicate' - those are the users that would care. I would hazard a guess that everyone on this question is part of that 1 in 100. Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 6:16
  • 1
    Think of SE like a museum - we have people coming in and giving us artefacts, but we're the ones who work here, we're the ones deciding what's worth displaying vs. what isn't. If we already have 100 arrowheads, Do we really need to display the one the user just brought in? They may think their arrowhead is special or different, which may warrant further investigation, but most would just say "Oh, ok, nevermind then". Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 6:18
  • 1
    In other words, the curatorship can be handled by those that care, whilst the ones who don't can just ask the question they need answered, clicking "This solved my problem" if it, you know... solves their problem. Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 6:21
  • 2
    I agree, I think that the site's wording should be encouraging to those who are of the 1/100 ‘I care’ mentality and those who are at least tameable because these people are those of us who stick around and become decent contributors. Yes most of the questions that I ask are questions that I myself seek an answer to, but in doing so, I do try to write my questions (and other contributions) in a way that contributes to a repository of information, and occasionally I do use the ‘Answer your own question – share your knowledge, Q&A-style’ checkbox, which is clearly of the contributor mentality. Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 6:46
  • 1
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit - When did I say that? AAMOF I go out of my way to get people interested in how the site works. I dunno how many comments I've left to the effect of "Welcome to the site :)", or "If this answers your question, you should 'accept' it by clicking the check mark under the vote count, which awards the answerer (and you!) some extra rep points :)". It's people's choice whether they stick around or not, and I really don't think how we word a button is gonna change that. So why not word it for the 99% of the people that are actually gonna see it? Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 12:13
  • 2
    @Robotnik: You're missing my point. You're assuming that, if those 99% of people are the ones to see it, we must word the button according to their current misconceptions. Why not take word it to accurately reflect what this website is and what it stands for? Choosing to label a button to pander to misconceptions is harmful. Is what I'm saying. NB all your friendly comments are nice and great but irrelevant to this discussion! As is whether someone "sticks around or not". Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 12:18
  • 3
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit - No, you're missing mine. The users shouldn't have to care about our secondary objective of 'curating a repository' or the loftier 'building a better web'. Yes, they are secondary objectives - without the questions and answers that actually keep SE sites going, we would have nothing to curate, the 'misconception' is thinking that curating comes first. Further: you're the one that brought up "mould[ing] a 99/100-er into a 1/100-er.", and then called me 'harmful' for "Not pushing that mould" so don't tell me it's irrelevant after you've already made the point lol Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 12:37
  • 2
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit How in the world is "this solved my problem" reinforcing a misconception? I've read this whole comment stack and I still don't understand what distinction you're making. Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 18:53
  • 3
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I think you might have SO-focused blinkers on here. Yes, people treating SO as a helpdesk is a problem. That's not a new-user misconception that all of SE shares. Treating the whole network as if it's just like SO is not helpful. Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 19:10