• Re: =?UTF-8?B?4oCcVGhl?= Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost

    From Sam@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed May 21 21:40:31 2025
    Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?4oCcVGhl?= Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost
    =?UTF-8?B?ZGVhZOKAnQ==?=

    Lynn McGuire writes:

    “The Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost dead
    https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/the-pulse-134

    “Four months ago, we asked Are LLMs making Stack Overflow irrelevant? Data
    at the time suggested that the answer is likely “yes:”

    “June 2021: Stack Overflow sold for $1.8B to private equity investor, Prosus. In hindsight, the founders – Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky – sold
    with near-perfect timing, before terminal decline.

    Unreal.

    It's not the LLM or AI that made Stackoverflow jump the shark. They simply failed to achieve sufficient mind share to be able to withstand the natural factors that work to collapse every social media platform that employs content moderation. Stackoverflow's content moderation policies pissed off their most productive contributors, so they all left, and there wasn't
    enough garbage left to support what's left behind.

    If SO grew big enough before their loss of mindshare they might've had a chance to carry on by inertia, as a steaming pile of flaming crap. Case in point: Facebook. But they didn't. Goodbye.


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Richard Heathfield@3:633/280.2 to All on Wed May 21 21:48:03 2025
    Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=E2=80=9CThe_Pulse_=23134=3A_Stack_overflow_is_almo?=
    =?UTF-8?Q?st_dead=E2=80=9D?=

    On 21/05/2025 12:40, Sam wrote:
    Stackoverflow's content moderation policies pissed off their most
    productive contributors, so they all left

    Good.

    I'm sick and tired of searching for a documentation Web site and
    having to wade through dozens of hits from non-normative Web
    forums that don't quite have the answer for the question I didn't
    quite ask.

    --
    Richard Heathfield
    Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
    "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
    Sig line 4 vacant - apply within


    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: Fix this later (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Kaz Kylheku@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu May 22 03:24:29 2025
    Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CThe?= Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost
    =?UTF-8?Q?dead=E2=80=9D?=

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.lang.c.]
    On 2025-05-21, Sam <sam@email-scan.com> wrote:
    Lynn McGuire writes:

    “The Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost dead
    https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/the-pulse-134

    “Four months ago, we asked Are LLMs making Stack Overflow irrelevant? Data
    at the time suggested that the answer is likely “yes:”

    “June 2021: Stack Overflow sold for $1.8B to private equity investor,
    Prosus. In hindsight, the founders – Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky – sold
    with near-perfect timing, before terminal decline.

    Unreal.

    It's not the LLM or AI that made Stackoverflow jump the shark. They simply failed to achieve sufficient mind share to be able to withstand the natural factors that work to collapse every social media platform that employs content moderation. Stackoverflow's content moderation policies pissed off their most productive contributors, so they all left, and there wasn't enough garbage left to support what's left behind.

    The main moderation problem on StackExchange sites is the abrupt closing
    of questions. This is perpetrated by those contributors themselves.

    But a constant stream of fresh question is the lifeblood of the site.
    When visitors stop coming to ask quesitons, it dies.

    Questions are often closed because they are duplicates. However,
    they are often not exact duplicates.

    Moreover, people ask duplicate questions because the site's search
    function is garbage: the answer is in there, but they were not able to
    find it.

    StackExchange pushes the narrative that questions and their answers
    should be useful to future visitors. But then they rely on Google
    for those visitors to actually find them.

    When you do that, you are handing (even more) control over your traffic
    to Google.

    Google served up site summaries without routing visitors to the actual
    sites, even before the rise of LLM AI.

    --
    TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
    Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
    Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Sam@3:633/280.2 to All on Thu May 22 12:05:29 2025
    Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?4oCcVGhl?= Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost
    =?UTF-8?B?ZGVhZOKAnQ==?=

    Kaz Kylheku writes:

    The main moderation problem on StackExchange sites is the abrupt closing
    of questions. This is perpetrated by those contributors themselves.

    But a constant stream of fresh question is the lifeblood of the site.
    When visitors stop coming to ask quesitons, it dies.

    Questions are often closed because they are duplicates. However,
    they are often not exact duplicates.

    Oh yes. The new question has a problem in its

    int foo()

    function. But the dupe question discussed the same error with

    int foobar()

    so it's not an exact duplicate.

    I've heard this complaint repeatedly. Earlier this week I read a bunch of whiners on Slashdot, who were caterwauling about this. I can only speak from personal experience. Dupes can be reopened. I closed many, many question as dupes. I did not have many friends, over there, not exactly, but my dupes were reversed very, very rarely. There were quite a few other, similarly … strong… personalities, and they would've jumped at any opportunity to reverse my dupes. But I can count on my fingers how many times it actually happened.

    Similarly I don't recall ever reopening someone else's dupe. Maybe I did,
    but I don't remember it.

    Maaaaybe, just maaaaybe, you know what? They were, really, dupes.

    I can say with absolute certainty that there wasn't any kind of a cabal over there, that banded together to close questions as dupes, left and right,
    with some kind of a gentleman's agreement not to reopen each other's dupes. So, if the complaint is that there were a lot of question that were getting closed as dupes, the explanation for that is that …they were dupes.

    I recognize that this is cited frequently as a SO problem. I just don't
    think this is the case, based on direct personal experience. I conclude
    that, either:

    1) All high karma contributors on SO were assholes who enjoyed closing questions as dupes, and who were doing it without any coordination between themselves, whatsoever. I never coordinated anything, of any sort, with anyone else. Or,

    2) Maybe, just maybe, all the dupes – or at least most of them – were proper. Perhaps they're…

    Moreover, people ask duplicate questions because the site's search
    function is garbage: the answer is in there, but they were not able to
    find it.

    …reasonable dupes because of this factor. Perhaps. But the resulting dupe closure self-corrects because…

    StackExchange pushes the narrative that questions and their answers
    should be useful to future visitors. But then they rely on Google
    for those visitors to actually find them.

    … the dupe closures include links to the dupes. And I often spent extra times on the dupes, very often I added additional links links to two or
    three more extra questions, to the dupe closure. Once a question is closed as a dupe it was possible to edit the dupe question list, and add (or even remove) the dupe questions. I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to think that I'm not special in any way, so if I was doing that I want to
    think that others were doing the same too, to help point the teeming masses at all that prior art.

    I think the problem went beyond dupes. It was three-fold:

    1) The low-information teeming masses with self-esteem problems often interpreted dupe closures as a grave, personal insult of some sort. At the very least, if a dupe was not a 100% match, it was a 99% match and the remaining 1% was some secondary factor that anyone with a bare minimum of subject matter knowledge should be able to discern on their own. But the low- information teeming masses demand everything to be served to them on a
    silver platter and refuse to do even the bare minimum of neuron shuffling,
    to accomplish that.

    2) I observed, from direct experience, a direct colleration between
    someone's newbie factor, and their snowflake factor. That is, the more someone is a newbie, the more likely is that this someone is also a fragile snowflake, who considers their question getting closed as a personal insult. See 1.

    3) SO's attempt to remedy this growing conflict only exacerbated it, and
    only made it worse. Their imposition of, essentially, a Snowflake Bill Of Rights had the inevitable result. Telling a bunch of snowflakes that they're special, that they will be named George, and Stackoverflow will hug them,
    and pet them, and give them security, and will keep them warm like a mother, all of that only encourages the snowflakes to simply become bigger snowflakes. That's what always happens in these situations.

    Appeasement never reduces social conflict, it only encourages more of it.
    The experienced contributors are far more likely to have better emotional control, but even they will eventually reach, individually, a point where contributing on SO is no longer worth it, for whatever it was worth for
    them. Getting shit on, in response, eventually gets old. It's only a
    question of how deep the shitpile has to be, before it's time to say: so
    long and thanks for all the fish. And without the experienced contributors, SO becomes just a dusty, flaming, dumpster fire with everyone else accusing everyone else of not being welcoming enough.

    As I wrote previously: social media site who reach sufficient size will have sufficient momentum to carry themselves forward, while continuing to be a flaming dumpster fire, like Facebook. The problem with SO is that they did not reach the sufficient size to become that self-sufficient dumpster fire.

    When you do that, you are handing (even more) control over your traffic
    to Google.

    Google served up site summaries without routing visitors to the actual
    sites, even before the rise of LLM AI.

    Dunno. I read those summaries too. And I still follow through the links.
    Just earlier today this happened: I was brushing up on all the crap that
    went into C++ in the last two revisions. I remembered the specific term I wanted to review. Google came back with an entire page of an AI-generated answer.

    It was actually quite good, but I still clicked through to cppreference.com. Besides, before I forget: I wanted to mention another contributing factor to SO's fall from grace: everyone who ended up on SO, while looking for www.pleasewritemycodeforme.com or www.pleasedebugmycodeforme.net. I don't recall Google ever serving up complete code in their AI summary, so that entire crowd will still follow the links in the search results.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)
  • From Sam@3:633/280.2 to All on Mon May 26 03:35:06 2025
    Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?B?4oCcVGhl?= Pulse #134: Stack overflow is almost
    =?UTF-8?B?ZGVhZOKAnQ==?=

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:

    On Wed, 21 May 2025 07:40:31 -0400, Sam wrote:

    It's not the LLM or AI that made Stackoverflow jump the shark. They
    simply failed to achieve sufficient mind share to be able to withstand
    the natural factors that work to collapse every social media platform
    that employs content moderation.

    I was answering question and gaining points on there for a while, until I realized that the points themselves didn’t mean anything (beyond conveying some kind of status on the site itself). I kind of lost interest after
    that.

    I think my account is still there, and my answers are still accumulating points ...

    There's a very telling footnote in one of the FAQs over there. I don't have the direct link because, well, I couldn't care less, but the FAQ entry wrote about a cryptic reason for a loss of reputation points that says something like "Account Closed". The explanation is that someone in ancient times upvoted you, but their account was closed so the karma is being taken back due to the reversed upvote, as if it never happened.

    And here's the telling footnote, that went something like "Ummmm… if closing
    an account would cause too much disruption we have a special procedure to close accounts without reversing the upvotes".

    Now, why would they have to go through the hassle of implementing a process that gets rid of high karma accounts, without backing out the rep change…

    Keep in mind that high karma accounts are also more likely to have a large number of upvotes of others, too.

    --- MBSE BBS v1.1.1 (Linux-x86_64)
    * Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (3:633/280.2@fidonet)