Skip to main content

Timeline for answer to Do you agree with Gergely that "Stack Overflow is almost dead"? by Journeyman Geek

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

Post Revisions

9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 25 at 21:33 history edited halfer CC BY-SA 4.0
Typo
Jun 24, 2025 at 14:43 comment added VLAZ @NadavHar'El "years later people seem to think that "new questions" and "new answers" and "community" and "accounts" and "interactions" are valid metrics for this site. I claim they are not." neither does the answer claim that at all. The company (a.k.a. SE) certainly did burn through a lot of goodwill and patience of the community. That's not even debatable - many engaged users have stepped down or even completely left the sites. That by itself is not "death" of the sites. But waving our hands and declaring it a non-factor is also not what we should be doing.
Jun 24, 2025 at 14:33 comment added Journeyman Geek So to me - SE dying would be cause it lost its way with the community as much as by death by AI or other subsitutes.
Jun 24, 2025 at 14:33 comment added Journeyman Geek Well, I'm not talking about anonymous users - I'm thinking of those folks who claim SE and its model is toxic and want us to move closer to a different model, as mentioned deeper down. And to me the 'hard to quanitify' parts of community, that people hang out here both to do Q&A and to an extent use the social and community parts of it when they arn't is essential. To me, chat and meta being quiet is as much of a sign of an ailing community as poor QPDs for example, as would people leaving the network or roles within it due to disagreements with the community.
Jun 24, 2025 at 14:23 comment added Nadav Har'El Maybe the idea of Google searches was baked into the design (and they certainly didn't do anything to actively prevent it), but years later people seem to think that "new questions" and "new answers" and "community" and "accounts" and "interactions" are valid metrics for this site. I claim they are not. Stackoverflow isn't "dead" because it "lost its way with the community" (which is what JG said).
Jun 24, 2025 at 13:53 comment added VLAZ @NadavHar'El the original idea of SO was that most users would be landing here from web searches. This isn't an emergent property of the system, it's baked in its design. The site even allows unregistered users to post answers and make suggested edits just so the barrier to participation is lower. An account has never been strictly required. Yet, that's not what JG is talking about. The existence of anonymous users has never really been a problem to my knowledge.
Jun 24, 2025 at 13:36 comment added Nadav Har'El "company has tried to accommodate folks who want the benefits of a well curated knowledge base without the constraints," At some point, Google made it very easy to search for Stackoverflow answers directly in its search bar, without logging into stackoverflow. New users did not need stackoverflow accounts, didn't need to "ask a question" or "vote", they just benefited from the quality answers. Some may call this "death" of Stackoverflow, I would call it - success!
May 19, 2025 at 23:11 history edited Journeyman Geek CC BY-SA 4.0
Minor edit. I wrote this at 2.30am, sleepless and some errors were inevitable
May 19, 2025 at 19:10 history answered Journeyman Geek CC BY-SA 4.0