The Fall of Stack Overflow

Re:The Fall of Stack Overflow by AlbertCory on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @03:02PM (#36960865)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fall of Stack Overflow by matsemann on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @03:16PM (#36961068)

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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fall of Stack Overflow by AlbertCory on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @04:39PM (#36962484)

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Fall of Stack Overflow by matsemann on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @05:03PM (#36962874)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]