Or ask questions or answers that anyone might consider dumb...including anything obvious to a 10+ year expert.
I've seen people ask "I started programming yesterday" type questions and get very positive feedback. I've seen people spend at least 5 times as much time writing a detailed answer than was likely spent on writing the question. Maybe your SO experience just happens to be with tags that are overwhelmingly watched by unpleasant people, in which case I'd blame the community of that specific technology and not SO as a whole.
The last question I read was someone trying to use C-style #include statements in Lua code, and nobody berated them for not realising this couldn't possibly work.
Also don't ask questions if you are the wrong color, wrong gender, wrong income bracket, wrong experience level, or if your project is something that anyone might not think is awesome.
None of those are visible on SO unless you specifically choose to display them. Either way, I have yet to see a good question or answer being down-voted for any of those reasons. But then again, I don't follow the python or C++ tags.
Funny, as I've encountered more intelligent people here than in the years I was on StackOverflow. And yes, there are many discussions about detailed things like this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure SO has more users than dev. But maybe you're saying that deb has more smart people proportionally? Either way, my experience is, people who build stuff almost always watch the SO tags of their creations, so you have very good chances of getting a very direct answer there.
Or maybe you should come off your high horse and write an article on it yourself.
It's a question that can be answered in two or three paragraphs and 20 or 30 lines of example code to underline the theory. Why write a whole article, when the Q&A format of SO is much better suited for this sort of thing?
Often, things like that aren't discussed because the experts in many languages guard that expertise like it's the holy grail.
Again, I can't speak about the C++ community, but I've seen countless times that people on SO are happy to explain details nobody even wanted to know when given a good excuse. This changes however, when the question is asked very rudely.
Maybe your SO experience just happens to be with tags that are overwhelmingly watched by unpleasant people, in which case I'd blame the community of that specific technology and not SO as a whole.
Again, I was a flag reviewer for over a year. Nope. It was site-wide.
None of those are visible on SO unless you specifically choose to display them.
Doesn't affect being downvoted for being a poor black college student. (True story.) Those downvotes were never reversed.
Either way, I have yet to see a good question or answer being down-voted for any of those reasons. But then again, I don't follow the python or C++ tags.
Spend a year in the review queues, and then we'll talk.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure SO has more users than dev. But maybe you're saying that deb has more smart people proportionally?
I'm saying I've encountered more, not that there are more or less. I was addressing the claim that DEV lacks experienced developers.
It's a question that can be answered in two or three paragraphs and 20 or 30 lines of example code to underline the theory. Why write a whole article, when the Q&A format of SO is much better suited for this sort of thing?
Have you seen some of the top articles here on DEV?
This changes however, when the question is asked very rudely.
I am not talking about rudely asked questions. I've flagged plenty of those myself.
Long story short, that was an admirable effort at a strawman argument, but your primary mistake was relying on the assumption that I was just inexperienced with StackOverflow outside a couple of tags. You missed the whole "I worked the review queues for over a year" part, which renders most your points ridiculous.
But then, this is the same response that these concerns get on Meta. The victims and the observers of the toxicity are required to build a Federal case to prove that their experience is somehow valid, but the guilty parties and the This Is Fine-ers enjoy default benefit of the doubt, despite any evidence presented. There's excuses for allllll the garbage. Always is.
And it will never change, unfortunately, because the above is the majority of StackOverflow elite attitudes, and it's why the toxicity persists there. It's like saying "I haven't PERSONALLY experienced much of the toxicity. You must be at fault, partly or completely, or else you're just in a bubble. Our playground is nice, as long as you play by our rules."
Just further evidence that we need to lock-archive the entire StackOverflow community and start over. It failed.
Again, I was a flag reviewer for over a year. Nope. It was site-wide.
I wasn't very clear with that point, so let me correct it somewhat: I'm not arguing that there's a small minority of tags where users are toxic. I'm saying that a) in the tags I follow people are rarely toxic and b) in the few hours I spent in various queues, toxicity was very uncommon.
That's not what I'd call "side-wide", but it also doesn't have to mean it's not a problem for the whole platform.
Doesn't affect being downvoted for being a poor black college student. (True story.) Those downvotes were never reversed.
With my quote above that, I read that sentence as "Nobody knowing you're a poor black college student doesn't affect being downvoted for it", which I assume is a misunderstanding, so maybe you could clarify that.
Spend a year in the review queues, and then we'll talk.
Been there, done that. So I guess I'll just throw this back at you: your primary mistake was relying on the assumption that I was just inexperienced with StackOverflow outside a couple of tags.
It's like saying "I haven't PERSONALLY experienced much of the toxicity. You must be at fault, partly or completely, or else you're just in a bubble. Our playground is nice, as long as you play by our rules."
Well, thanks for weasel-word-strawmanning me there.
I am not talking about rudely asked questions. I've flagged plenty of those myself.
Some questions don't fall into the category of being unacceptably rude, but are still asked in a way that's in some way unpleasant to deal with. My point is that for those questions, flagging is too much, so down-voting is a way of telling people "don't do that".
I'm saying I've encountered more, not that there are more or less. I was addressing the claim that DEV lacks experienced developers.
That's cool, but completely irrelevant to my point. There are more users on SO, and by extension there's more knowledgeable users as well, so you have a higher chance of being seen by the right person when you have a question. That doesn't mean your experience with DEV couldn't have been much better than with SO, and I'm not arguing it wasn't.
Have you seen some of the top articles here on DEV?
As in top of all time? Not really, no. I just open DEV a few times a day and see what articles are floating around the top at that point. I don't really see what your point is though.
The victims and the observers of the toxicity are required to build a Federal case to prove that their experience is somehow valid
And that's exactly as it should be when you're accusing someone of something. Believe me, I've been in many conversations about SO being toxic, and it's a constant that whenever someone asks for specific examples, that just doesn't happen. It's always just the vague concept of toxicity being thrown around like it means something on its own.
despite any evidence presented
Can't really confirm, because I don't spend much time on meta. All I can say from conversations on reddit & al. is that I have yet to see those mountains of evidence.
For the record of anyone else reading, I refuse to insult the intelligence of DEV readers further by responding to this. People who are comfortable with the StackOverflow toxicity see what they want to see, refuse to see what they don't, and no amount of information to the contrary will convince them. You must be prepared to keep a detailed archive of every single instance — eyewitness testimony is not admissable to their court of law and disorder — and be further prepared to defend each and every piece.
And even then, as Meta will quickly show you, they will seldom act on it.
People who are comfortable with toxicity won't call it toxicity, or believe it's that. Everyone else who is sick of those caveman attitudes in tech will read this thread and see the problem.
I still don't understand why you're becoming so defensive about the idea that stack overflow is such a bad platform. DEV seems to work quite well for you, so where's the harm in admitting that for others SO works just as well without implying that we're all just used to toxicity because we're toxic ourselves?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I've seen people ask "I started programming yesterday" type questions and get very positive feedback. I've seen people spend at least 5 times as much time writing a detailed answer than was likely spent on writing the question. Maybe your SO experience just happens to be with tags that are overwhelmingly watched by unpleasant people, in which case I'd blame the community of that specific technology and not SO as a whole.
The last question I read was someone trying to use C-style
#includestatements in Lua code, and nobody berated them for not realising this couldn't possibly work.None of those are visible on SO unless you specifically choose to display them. Either way, I have yet to see a good question or answer being down-voted for any of those reasons. But then again, I don't follow the
pythonorC++tags.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure SO has more users than dev. But maybe you're saying that deb has more smart people proportionally? Either way, my experience is, people who build stuff almost always watch the SO tags of their creations, so you have very good chances of getting a very direct answer there.
It's a question that can be answered in two or three paragraphs and 20 or 30 lines of example code to underline the theory. Why write a whole article, when the Q&A format of SO is much better suited for this sort of thing?
Again, I can't speak about the C++ community, but I've seen countless times that people on SO are happy to explain details nobody even wanted to know when given a good excuse. This changes however, when the question is asked very rudely.
Again, I was a flag reviewer for over a year. Nope. It was site-wide.
Doesn't affect being downvoted for being a poor black college student. (True story.) Those downvotes were never reversed.
Spend a year in the review queues, and then we'll talk.
I'm saying I've encountered more, not that there are more or less. I was addressing the claim that DEV lacks experienced developers.
Have you seen some of the top articles here on DEV?
I am not talking about rudely asked questions. I've flagged plenty of those myself.
Long story short, that was an admirable effort at a strawman argument, but your primary mistake was relying on the assumption that I was just inexperienced with StackOverflow outside a couple of tags. You missed the whole "I worked the review queues for over a year" part, which renders most your points ridiculous.
But then, this is the same response that these concerns get on Meta. The victims and the observers of the toxicity are required to build a Federal case to prove that their experience is somehow valid, but the guilty parties and the This Is Fine-ers enjoy default benefit of the doubt, despite any evidence presented. There's excuses for allllll the garbage. Always is.
And it will never change, unfortunately, because the above is the majority of StackOverflow elite attitudes, and it's why the toxicity persists there. It's like saying "I haven't PERSONALLY experienced much of the toxicity. You must be at fault, partly or completely, or else you're just in a bubble. Our playground is nice, as long as you play by our rules."
Just further evidence that we need to lock-archive the entire StackOverflow community and start over. It failed.
I wasn't very clear with that point, so let me correct it somewhat: I'm not arguing that there's a small minority of tags where users are toxic. I'm saying that a) in the tags I follow people are rarely toxic and b) in the few hours I spent in various queues, toxicity was very uncommon.
That's not what I'd call "side-wide", but it also doesn't have to mean it's not a problem for the whole platform.
With my quote above that, I read that sentence as "Nobody knowing you're a poor black college student doesn't affect being downvoted for it", which I assume is a misunderstanding, so maybe you could clarify that.
Been there, done that. So I guess I'll just throw this back at you: your primary mistake was relying on the assumption that I was just inexperienced with StackOverflow outside a couple of tags.
Well, thanks for weasel-word-strawmanning me there.
Some questions don't fall into the category of being unacceptably rude, but are still asked in a way that's in some way unpleasant to deal with. My point is that for those questions, flagging is too much, so down-voting is a way of telling people "don't do that".
That's cool, but completely irrelevant to my point. There are more users on SO, and by extension there's more knowledgeable users as well, so you have a higher chance of being seen by the right person when you have a question. That doesn't mean your experience with DEV couldn't have been much better than with SO, and I'm not arguing it wasn't.
As in top of all time? Not really, no. I just open DEV a few times a day and see what articles are floating around the top at that point. I don't really see what your point is though.
And that's exactly as it should be when you're accusing someone of something. Believe me, I've been in many conversations about SO being toxic, and it's a constant that whenever someone asks for specific examples, that just doesn't happen. It's always just the vague concept of toxicity being thrown around like it means something on its own.
Can't really confirm, because I don't spend much time on meta. All I can say from conversations on reddit & al. is that I have yet to see those mountains of evidence.
For the record of anyone else reading, I refuse to insult the intelligence of DEV readers further by responding to this. People who are comfortable with the StackOverflow toxicity see what they want to see, refuse to see what they don't, and no amount of information to the contrary will convince them. You must be prepared to keep a detailed archive of every single instance — eyewitness testimony is not admissable to their court of law and disorder — and be further prepared to defend each and every piece.
And even then, as Meta will quickly show you, they will seldom act on it.
People who are comfortable with toxicity won't call it toxicity, or believe it's that. Everyone else who is sick of those caveman attitudes in tech will read this thread and see the problem.
I'm moving on to teachable people now. Ta!
I still don't understand why you're becoming so defensive about the idea that stack overflow is such a bad platform. DEV seems to work quite well for you, so where's the harm in admitting that for others SO works just as well without implying that we're all just used to toxicity because we're toxic ourselves?