I'm glad you're in the happy minority of SO users that have had a predominantly positive experience. (Most of that is because you're on the Javascript tags, which has been observed to be considerably less representative of the behavioral toxic waste dump the rest of the site is.) I've been on StackOverflow for years, served as a volunteer reviewer for some time, and have decent reputation...but I quit for all the reasons described in the post, mainly observing those realities in terms of other users.
If a platform encourages particular behavior, and does not properly address it, it is absolutely the platform's fault. DEV isn't toxic because DEV does not allow itself to become toxic. To shrug it off and say, "aw, that's just a few bad actors" is how we've tolerated toxicity for decades in this industry.
I would argue that while SO and Dev both have the same "generate content + get eyes + sell ads" business plan, but that they have very different goals for what content is created.
I understand how you feel. I just wanted to offer another viewpoint. I would be 1/10th of the developer if people hadn't pushed me really hard on StackOverflow. It was often very upsetting. It's certainly a dance.
I think dev could use a little bit of a "this isn't good enough" mentality. How will anyone become better writers with no critique? I'm wondering if that's what codenewbie seeks to do and split the dev community up into 'beginner' and 'advanced?
I'd still like to see an example question where people were treating you badly. That would help people understand and hopefully learn from it.
I'd still like to see an example question where people were treating you badly. That would help people understand and hopefully learn from it.
(1) I don't make a habit of storing up toxic content, (2) most of the toxic behavior was aimed at others, not me, as I already said, and (3) the burden of proof of toxic behavior is not on the victim when it is this widespread.
I would be 1/10th of the developer if people hadn't pushed me really hard on StackOverflow. It was often very upsetting. It's certainly a dance.
And by the way, I understand all about being pushed to be a better developer. The #python Freenode IRC channel did that for me. But they were polite and constructive except for the odd incident (which was always resolved appropriately), whereas StackOverflow tends not to be, especially when revenge-fueled downvotes are preserved.
Speaking as a mentor and community manager, good constructive "pushing" should not be upsetting as a rule, and it should never make you feel stupid for showing up. Getting downvoted into oblivion does tear people down.
What's further, the community has always roundly rejected all proposals to require some (anonymous, even) feedback option to be select to accompany the downvote. The justification? "I should be allowed to vote however I want, whyever I want, without accountability." I dare you to look up the conversations on Meta about downvoting. It's a cesspool of toxic attitudes.
A downvote is never constructive. A comment can be. It's the difference between saying "you should do X differently" (what I always got in #python) and saying "you/your content sucks" (what a downvote says).
I think dev could use a little bit of a "this isn't good enough" mentality. How will anyone become better writers with no critique?
Perhaps. As a published author with over two decades professional experience in the writing field, I know the value of critique. But one also has to be careful. In professional writing circles, helpful critique always occurs in a context of trust. The anonymity of the internet makes it unsafe by default, and ripe ground for toxicity.
I'm glad you're in the happy minority of SO users that have had a predominantly positive experience. (Most of that is because you're on the Javascript tags, which has been observed to be considerably less representative of the behavioral toxic waste dump the rest of the site is.) I've been on StackOverflow for years, served as a volunteer reviewer for some time, and have decent reputation...but I quit for all the reasons described in the post, mainly observing those realities in terms of other users.
If a platform encourages particular behavior, and does not properly address it, it is absolutely the platform's fault. DEV isn't toxic because DEV does not allow itself to become toxic. To shrug it off and say, "aw, that's just a few bad actors" is how we've tolerated toxicity for decades in this industry.
I would argue that while SO and Dev both have the same "generate content + get eyes + sell ads" business plan, but that they have very different goals for what content is created.
I understand how you feel. I just wanted to offer another viewpoint. I would be 1/10th of the developer if people hadn't pushed me really hard on StackOverflow. It was often very upsetting. It's certainly a dance.
I think dev could use a little bit of a "this isn't good enough" mentality. How will anyone become better writers with no critique? I'm wondering if that's what codenewbie seeks to do and split the dev community up into 'beginner' and 'advanced?
I'd still like to see an example question where people were treating you badly. That would help people understand and hopefully learn from it.
(1) I don't make a habit of storing up toxic content, (2) most of the toxic behavior was aimed at others, not me, as I already said, and (3) the burden of proof of toxic behavior is not on the victim when it is this widespread.
And by the way, I understand all about being pushed to be a better developer. The
#pythonFreenode IRC channel did that for me. But they were polite and constructive except for the odd incident (which was always resolved appropriately), whereas StackOverflow tends not to be, especially when revenge-fueled downvotes are preserved.Speaking as a mentor and community manager, good constructive "pushing" should not be upsetting as a rule, and it should never make you feel stupid for showing up. Getting downvoted into oblivion does tear people down.
What's further, the community has always roundly rejected all proposals to require some (anonymous, even) feedback option to be select to accompany the downvote. The justification? "I should be allowed to vote however I want, whyever I want, without accountability." I dare you to look up the conversations on Meta about downvoting. It's a cesspool of toxic attitudes.
A downvote is never constructive. A comment can be. It's the difference between saying "you should do X differently" (what I always got in
#python) and saying "you/your content sucks" (what a downvote says).Perhaps. As a published author with over two decades professional experience in the writing field, I know the value of critique. But one also has to be careful. In professional writing circles, helpful critique always occurs in a context of trust. The anonymity of the internet makes it unsafe by default, and ripe ground for toxicity.
I think you've nailed it. StackOverflow isn't a good place for you.
I wouldn't call it a healthy place for anyone overall. Tolerating toxicity gets under one's skin after a while.
Disproven. There exists at least one user for whom SO is a healthy place.
Well, toxic behavior is usually considered safe by people who commit it, so, yeah, fair point.
So I'm saying I don't experience almost any toxicity on stack-overflow, and your answer is that I just don't know toxicity when I see it?