Comment by zahlman

> You’re trying to lawyer your way around this very plain fact

It's not lawyering. I'm extremely well aware of the impedance mismatch. It wasn't created by the community. It was created by the site software failing to align with the site's goals.

> in the minds of the vast majority of people who knew about it, it was a site to ask questions about relatively obscure topics, and for knowledgeable people to answer them to disseminate their knowledge.

Well, no. "The vast majority of people who knew about it" were asking beginner-level questions, as is to be expected, because every field of human endeavour is full of neophytes. They believed their questions to be obscure due to a lack of expertise. They often were obscure; not because of the subject matter but because of a lack of attempt to debug the code (and, often, a lack of general awareness of the concept of debugging). And they were often not coherent questions at all, or else they were multiple questions arising from multiple problems with the same code sample.

But it was a site to ask questions and for knowledgeable people to answer them to disseminate their knowledge. That is not even slightly inconsistent with anything I've said here.

The problem is, "this is a place to ask and answer questions" is not the same thing as "this is a place to show what's causing you a problem and get someone to help you, specifically" and also not the same thing as "this is a place to help people solve their problems one-on-one".

> You make it sound like users were supposed to consider using the site as their primary goal, and consider the subject at hand as secondary.

Yes, because they were. Just like they are on every other website, e.g. this one. When people come to HN and post things that are counter to the guidelines, other community members use downvotes, flags and polite replies (and, in some cases, emails to the site staff) to address the issue. This much is obvious and I don't understand how it can be a point of contention.

> If you read what people were saying here in good faith (or really what damn near everyone outside of that insular community has said about it for like a decade and a half) you’d realize that you are in the extreme minority.

I have been reading it for most of that decade and a half. I have been flooded with it again and again and again. I literally cannot find an off-site discussion of Stack Overflow that isn't full of it. I am intimately familiar with the argument, and you have said nothing new here.

What I have said over and over again, which everyone outside "the extreme minority" seems unwilling to accept, is that this does not matter. If people come to a place and don't care about how things work in that place, the place is not in any way obligated to change to accommodate them. The people should leave of their own accord, and they should accept that they misunderstood the place, and accept that the place has a right to sovereignty, and find a different place that does work the way they want.

There were countless places that did work the way the typical new SO user wanted. SO existed specifically because of a belief that those places are incapable of producing a useful knowledge base, and cause experts to burn out on repeating basic advice. (SO use patterns demonstrated to me that actually there are more than enough people around who are happy to repeat basic advice and operate a free help desk for beginners; if they get upset, it's because the beginners still fail to understand things after they were explained. But those people were actively interfering with the site's objectives. They were far more destructive than any beginner could ever be.)

> And there are a hundred billion ways it could have pimped its best questions to Google without having the layer of obnoxious, arrogant people playing question police.

You had over a decade and a half to try proposing some on meta.

> Yes, the points system was a mess because of the way it made people behave.

Specifically, it enabled the people I describe in the above parenthetical, yes. But you present this argument as if you think people were downvoting and closing questions, and otherwise trying to uphold policy, in order to gain reputation points.

That is the literal exact opposite of how the system worked. You got reputation for basically everything else, which then enabled you to take those actions. You got 0 reputation for voting to close something, or for "dupe-hammering" it with that specific privilege. You got either 0 or -1 reputation for downvoting something.

You could potentially get 2 reputation points for editing something, if you didn't already have unilateral edit privileges and your edit was accepted (and because the people who could accept your edit could also edit unilaterally, and were doing all of this specifically to try to make the site better by getting good edits in place ASAP, they were therefore incentivized not to give you that reputation.) Plus there was a cap on total reputation you could get that way; you still had to ask and answer questions to reach the unilateral edit privilege.

By contrast, you got +25 for an upvote and accept-mark on an answer, no matter how clearly the question violated site guidelines; versus -2 from an annoyed curator downvoting you for not understanding that you weren't supposed to answer the question and were supposed to help close it instead. (Plus you got a five minute window to post if you'd started, even if the question got closed immediately. Plus you could do this unilaterally while three curators would have to agree to close except for duplicates. Plus only a small fraction of the userbase could cast close votes, while everyone could answer.)

> There could have been a much greater barrier to being able to meddle with other people’s words but there wasn’t.

That would have been an actively bad thing. The editing was by well-considered design, specifically to make the site better. The edits people complain about overwhelmingly do, objectively, obviously make the site better and I'm frankly tired of trying to explain the obvious. I have, over and over, for years, tried to point people at the policy explaining this. Nobody ever even tries to engage with it.

You may have noticed that Wikipedia frowns on signatures on main-space pages, and expects citations for claims, for example. SO policy is roughly analogous.

> If preponderance of users were really enamored with the community and governance and rules and site structure and all of that shit, rather than it simple having information on obscure topics and issues where you could get a question answered by someone who knew what they were talking about, then everybody wouldn’t have jumped ship literally the moment they had an alternative.

Nobody ever tried to say they were, certainly not me.

What I'm saying is that the people who didn't understand this stuff, shouldn't have been there in the first place. Because simply getting questions answered is not how you build a useful Q&A reference, and that is what the creators of the site wanted to have. Which is amply demonstrated by looking at a random sampling of questions (you can do this yourself on data.stackexchange.com with an SQL query, if you like).

I am genuinely happy they found the alternative(s) they wanted the whole time, and should have been using the whole time (well, as they became available).