No, you can't know without knowing the ratio of good to bad. With more popularity comes more negative experiences as well. And as with everything in life those with an axe to grind keep harping on forever and everywhere, making it more visible than the silent enjoyers.

"silent enjoyers" -- examples wanted? Some people never complain; they just leave. Others persevere because they're insensitive.

If I look at Yelp reviews, one or two bad reviews are standard. But if there are 30-40, all different, then I suspect something's up.

It doesn't matter about "the ratio of good to bad." If you're pissing off a lot of customers, you are bad. Period.

You could probably find 40 negative reviews of Apple world wide. But they are obviously bad then. Period.

You just don't give up, do you? Irrelevant. No one looks at Yelp to find out about Apple.

"Give up"? I'm just poking holes in your argument, not sure why I got anything to give up? Is me doing that worse than you not "giving up" somehow?

It's not irrelevant. I didn't even mention yelp so that's a straw man. You said the ratio didn't matter. I claimed it does, as looking at absolute numbers of complaints makes no sense. That's it.

I said, "If I look at Yelp reviews, one or two bad reviews are standard." So yes, it IS relevant, whether you forgot that or not.

Why are you just dismissing people with an other viewpoint than you as "those with an axe to grind" that "keep on harping forever and everywhere"? Your complete disregard of others experience and viewpoint is extremely in line with the elements that people dont like about SO.

"So that is your opinion, experience and thoughts? WRONG!". Add in some offhand slights, that will teach them!

Aren't you dismissing my viewpoint that it's not as bad as those claim? Is my experience worth less? I honestly don't get your point.

And nice straw man in your last sentence. Quite ironic while complaining about SO being the toxic ones..

Well, well. If we go to SO we see that a "matsemann" has been a member for 11 years, had 20,000+ reputation points, and is a "publicist" and a "steward".

Maybe that's not you, of course.

Relevant, how?

You're probably going to accuse me of some bias. I'm however going to claim I then know more of the state of SO, given my active membership there...

Usually writers do "full disclosure" when their objectivity is open to question.

Wow, what damning evidence! Someone commenting about a forum is a member of said forum! What a scoop, Pulitzer incoming!

Even in my very first post in this discussion, I mentioned review queues and what I feel is wrong with SO recently. It's pretty clear to everyone with reading skills that I'm therefore an active member there. And no sane person would think my "objectivity is open to question" based on me commenting a few lines about an article. I'm not a "writer", I'm just commenting on an article. What a weird thing to demand "full disclosure" of.

(And if you knew anything about SO (which I think one should do when discussing it..), you'd know that the badges you mention is just things normal members can do. I have no extra privileges or responsibility, as you seem to imply)

Edit: the comment I'm replying to has been massively edited since I wrote this.

As for my 15 comments: it's me in the root of the discussion. I'm not all over the comments, I'm just responding to comments in the tree of comments I've started. I don't think that should be discouraged.