News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by godelmachine on Tuesday December 26, 2017 @08:29AM (#16008492)
There was a time in my life, and that time is still persistent even now, when every question that I asked on SO was flagged, and I was banned for 7 days with a message which said something like this - "It seems your basic concepts are unclear. Kindly revise then and get back to us"

I swear to God I was so pissed off. Here I am , genuinely asking for help, and then these tech oligarch's were blocking me sitting in their ivory towers.

Hope this paper helps me out!

Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by wyldfire on Thursday December 28, 2017 @01:16AM (#16020646)
Wow, I'd used SO quite a bit but I've not heard of banning users asking legit questions. Then again, it might make some sense if you can skew your mind into fitting SO's goals (which don't quite align with many question-asker's goals).

SO wants curation and objective answers to objective questions. Vague or poorly-scoped questions? Toss em in the bin. Questions about "best way" "best library" or "best tool for"? Subjective or not-software -- in the bin.

As a question-answerer, a frustrating question would be one that tries to articulate a bug/problem but never cites any code, compiler error or runtime error. When posed by anyone who is not already an expert these questions very often cannot be addressed without a roundtrip involving "ok, please share the code so we can reproduce the problem".

No joke -- that tip about the MCVE or SSCCE was super valuable. Unfortunately I'd bet that just the act of making this example would probably yield an answer to the person's question most of the time, without even needing SO. Novice question-askers lacked the expertise/experience to know to do this or just the patience required. I'm not faulting them, I remember what it was like to be a novice. It's a reasonable expectation to turn to a mentor and show them the code and ask them what you're doing wrong.

> Hope this paper helps me out!

> > Results: We found that regardless of user reputation, successful questions are short, contain code snippets, and do not abuse with uppercase characters. As regards affect, successful questions adopt a neutral emotional style.

This matches my experience. But I'd love to hear how the results might change if they filtered on low reputation question askers.

When HN bashes SO, I feel conflicted. I totally understand why so many folks are disappointed. But I also think that it's good for what it wants to be.

Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by codinghorror on Thursday December 28, 2017 @02:40AM (#16020873)
The people who are dissatisfied invariably ask opinion based questions. That is not what Stack Overflow is for. Sure, there is always more than one way to do it, and any good SO question often has three solid viable answers — but if there are dozens? hundreds? .. it’s no longer a question, but a bikeshed type discussion.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by user5994461 on Thursday December 28, 2017 @12:15PM (#16023301)
>>> any good SO question often has three solid viable answers

the first viable answer is giving you the solution, except it doesn't work because the API has changed many years ago.

the second viable answer is telling you that you don't want to do that and it's certainly wrong to try.

the third viable answer is a guy advertising to use another library for just that. (Just because you use C++ doesn't mean you have boost or Qt available but fair enough).

The fourth viable answer is a guy advertising for his own library to solve that same problem. It may or may not be shameless advertising. The github link is dead half the time.

The topic is closed. It will never be possible to post the right valid answer to that problem.

Answers cannot be edited. They will rot forever and mislead an entire new generation.

Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by erezyehuda on Thursday December 28, 2017 @03:35PM (#16024702)
What do you mean by "answers cannot be edited"? They definitely can be, and not just by the person who posted it. I've updated an older answer or two.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by codinghorror on Friday December 29, 2017 @11:44PM (#16033884)
Completely incorrect. You can edit answers as an anonymous user and have been able to since.. 2010-ish?
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by nix0n on Thursday December 28, 2017 @10:41AM (#16022551)
What is the correct place for opinion based questions, when you want a technical opinion to help you solve a specific technical problem?
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by codinghorror on Friday December 29, 2017 @11:44PM (#16033888)
Anywhere but Stack Overflow. It is a great big Internet!
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by narag on Thursday December 28, 2017 @01:00PM (#16023632)
The people who are dissatisfied invariably ask opinion based questions.

I never ask questions in SO. To be honest, I'm not dissatisfied either, I just gave up. When I saw a question for which I knew the exact answer, I was unable to answer because... I don't know. I wasn't reputable enough to answer and I couldn't get a reputation because I couldn't answer. Or something like that, I don't remember or I don't care. I just google for answers.

So I would reconsider the "invariably". But that's just my two cents.

Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by codinghorror on Friday December 29, 2017 @11:43PM (#16033883)
Completely incorrect, you can answer any question as a brand new user. As another commenter pointed out, maybe you meant commenting? Which isn’t answering the question, but leaving a post-it note on an existing answer or question.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by posterboy on Thursday December 28, 2017 @07:59PM (#16026597)
you need rep to comment, so maybe the question you have in mind was in a comment.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by sideshowb on Thursday December 28, 2017 @05:37AM (#16021335)
Personally I get dissatisfied when over zealous mods fail to follow stack overflow's own guidelines on subjective questions. It would be a better site if, before closing a question as subjective, a user had to scroll down this and click "agree": https://stackoverflow.blog/2010/09/29/good-subjective-bad-su...
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by codinghorror on Friday December 29, 2017 @11:46PM (#16033889)
Well, sort of, but it is a complex, slippery slope and easiest to just avoid the realm of opinion altogether.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by lostlogin on Thursday December 28, 2017 @03:56AM (#16021038)
Flagged as duplicate.

Hasn’t happened to me, but nothing is more frustrating that having someone else ask my exact question then it gets flagged.

Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by foepys on Thursday December 28, 2017 @04:33AM (#16021130)
I often reach assumed duplicates via Google but still get very insightful answers. If I click on the link pointing towards the assumed original, it's sometimes completely deserted with a single two-line answer that's been outdated for three years.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by menacingly on Thursday December 28, 2017 @08:39AM (#16021911)
And they're happy to leave the duplicate up for the inbound google benefits it provides.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by katastic on Thursday December 28, 2017 @04:30AM (#16021120)
And then the duplicate doesn't even have the answers you need.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by cpburns2009 on Thursday December 28, 2017 @10:44AM (#16022584)
The best part is when the duplicate is related to your question, but the duplicate question is structured differently so you don't know how to apply its answers to your question. Sure, if you already knew the answer the duplicate answers make sense, but without that knowledge (hence why you asked in the first place) they are completely unhelpful.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by mark-r on Thursday December 28, 2017 @01:21PM (#16023755)
If the duplicate doesn't answer your question, you're supposed to edit your own question to indicate why the linked question wasn't helpful. At that point you're supposed to magically attract enough attention to get the question reopened. Unfortunately it rarely works out that way.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by abtinf on Thursday December 28, 2017 @01:06AM (#16020618)
Can you give an example of a question you asked?
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by mark-r on Thursday December 28, 2017 @01:34PM (#16023849)
A closed question that has a negative score will eventually get deleted. They call it the Roomba.
Re:Evidence-Based Guidelines for Writing Questions on Stack ... by mark-r on Thursday December 28, 2017 @01:33PM (#16023842)
That makes it sound like your questions were so basic, they indicated you weren't familiar with the technology you were asking about at all.