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 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?