- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
Over the past one and a half years, Stack Overflow has lost around 50% of its traffic. This decline is similarly reflected in site usage, with approximately a 50% decrease in the number of questions and answers, as well as the number of votes these posts receive.
The charts below show the usage represented by a moving average of 49 days.
What happened?
You must log in or register to comment.
There is a lot of Stack Overflow hate in this thread. I never had a bad experience. I was always on there yelling at noobs, telling them to Google it, and linking to irrelevant questions. It was just wholesome fun that briefly dulled my crippling insecurities
So you never had a bad experience, just were actively causing bad experiences for others?
deleted by creator
Sorry for being autistic ig
It isn’t obvious unless it has the slash s!
We should leave the /s back on reddit
Sadly, it really is necessary if one wants to be sure nobody actually takes the sarcasm seriously. It’s hard for people to tell in a textual medium.
Heck, my style of humor in RL is often sarcasm or deliberately ludicrous comments and people still sometimes go “wait, really?” Even though they know me well.
I’m going to go without it from now on. I can handle clarifying myself if it’s absolutely necessary for someone.
Yeah but those people who take the sarcasm seriously are fools and you can’t make things foolproof.
Encouraging and putting up with hair-splitting lawyerly un-generous readings of comments is what leads to people just straight up interpreting any “Plus I’m being genuine here” messages as lies.
We need to trust our readers, else we end up in an echo chamber culture where any deviation from the Party line is interpreted as “disruptive person who must be banned to protect our community”.
These things are linked.
The ability to deliver and detect sarcasm without training wheels is a layer of communication we need and can’t afford to abandon, in order to maintain a productive conversational environment.
Yeah but those people who take the sarcasm seriously are fools and you can’t make things foolproof.
Or you know, have a legitimatly very hard time distinguishing it for actual reasons.
chinesescholarshadasimilarst anceagainstallkindofpunctuat ionclaimingtheabilitytodeliv eranddetectmeaningwithouttra iningwheelswasalayerofcommun icationpeopleneededandcouldn otaffordtoabandoninordertoma intainaproductiveconversatio nalenvironmentwithanyoneunab letoreflectuponanddiscernthe intendedmeaningbeingafoolnot worthyoftheloftymessageswrit tencommunicationwasintendedf ortodiscernhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_punctuation
(This is a lesson in history, so I’ll let the discerning reader to decide for themselves whether there is sarcasm contained in it)
A “woosh” if you will.
I’m pretty sure they were being sarcastic.
Sarcasm
No “/s”, no sarcasm.
Rather than cultivate a friendly and open community, they decided to be hostile and closed. I am not surprised by this at all, but I am surprised with how long the decline has taken. I have a number of bad/silly experiences on stackoverflow that have never been replicated on any other platform.
Like what?
deleted by creator
All questions have been asked and all answers have been given
Are they all linked in a “duplicate of” circle yet?
Amazing how much hate SO receives here. As knowledge base it’s working super good. And yes, a lot of questions have been answered already. And also yes, just like any other online community there’s bad apples which you have to live with unfortunately.
Idolizing ChatGPT as a viable replacementis laughable, because it has no knowledge, no understanding, of what it says. It’s just repeating what it “learned” and connected. Ask about something new and it will simply lie, which is arguably worse than an unfriendly answer in my opinion.
The advice on stack overflow is trash because “that question has been answered already” yeah, it was answered 10 years ago on a completely different version. That answer is depreciated.
Not to mention the amount of convoluted answers that get voted to the top and then someone with two upvotes at the bottom meekly giving the answer that you actually needed.
It’s like that librarian from the New York public library who determined whether or not children’s books would even get published.
She gave “good night moon” a bad score and it fell out of popularity for 30 years after the author died.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Typically answers are getting upvoted when they work for someone. So the top answer worked for more people than the other answers. Now there can be more than one solution to a problem but neither the people who try to answer the question, nor the people who vote on the answers, can possibly know which of them works specifically for you.
ChatGPT will just as well give you a technically correct, but for you wrong, answer. And only after some refinement give the answer you need. Not that different than reading all the answers and picking the one which works for you.
Of course older answers are going to have more uovotes if they technically work. That doesn’t mean it’s the best answer. It’s possible that someone would like to make a new, better, answer and is unable to because of SA restrictions on posting.
The kinds of people who post on SA regularly aren’t going to be the people with the best answers.
On top of that SA gives badges for uovoting and it’s possible other benefits I’m unaware of.
As we saw with reddit, uovotes systems can be inherently flawed, we have no way of knowing if that uovote is genuine.
Explains the huge swaths of bad advice shared on Reddit though. It’s shared confidently and with a smile. Positive vibes only!
What’s “Reddit”?
(I removed all my advice from there when it was considered “violent content” and “sexualization of minors”… go find your 3d printing, programming, system management and chemistry tips elsewhere, I did it anyway)
I hear you. I firmly believe that comparing the behavior of GPT with that of certain individuals on SO is like comparing apples to oranges though.
GPT is a machine, and unlike human users on SO, it doesn’t harbor any intent to be exclusive or dismissive. The beauty of GPT lies in its willingness to learn and engage in constructive conversations. If it provides incorrect information, it is always open to being questioned and will readily explain its reasoning, allowing users to learn from the exchange.
In stark contrast, some users on SO seem to have a condescending attitude towards learners and are quick to shut them down, making it a challenging environment for those seeking genuine help. I’m sure that these individuals don’t represent the entire SO community, but I have yet to have a positive encounter there.
While GPT will make errors, it does so unintentionally, and the motivation behind its responses is to be helpful, rather than asserting superiority. Its non-judgmental approach creates a more welcoming and productive atmosphere for those seeking knowledge.
The difference between GPT and certain SO users lies in their intent and behavior. GPT strives to be inclusive and helpful, always ready to educate and engage in a constructive manner. In contrast, some users on SO can be dismissive and unsupportive, creating an unfavorable environment for learners. Addressing this distinction is vital to fostering a more positive and nurturing learning experience for everyone involved.
In my opinion this is what makes SO ineffective and is largely why it’s traffic had dropped even before chat GPT became publicly available.
Edit: I did use GPT to remove vitriol from and shorten my post. I’m trying to be nicer.
I think I see a core issue highlighted in your comment that seems like a common theme in this comment section.
At least from where I’m sitting, SO is not and has never been a place for learning, as in a substitute for novices learning by reading a book or documentation. In my 12-year experience with it, I’ve always seen it as a place for professionals and semi-professionals of various experience and overlap sharing answers typically not found in the manual, which speeds up the pace of investigations and work by filling eachother’s gaps. Not a place where people with plenty of time on their hands and/or knack for teaching go to teach novices. Of course there are those people there too but that’s been rare occurrence in my experience. And so if a person expects to get a nice lesson instead of a terse answer from someone with 5 minutes or less, those expectations will be perpetually broken. For me that terse answer is enough more often than not and its accuracy is infinitely more important than the attitude used to say it.
I expect a terse answer. I also am a professional. My experience with SO users is that they do not behave professionally. There’s not much more to it.
I don’t want to compare the behavior, only the quality of the answers. An unintentional error of ChatGPT is still an error, even when it’s delivered with a smile. I absolutely agree that the behavior of some SO users is detrimental and pushes people away.
I can also see ChatGPT (or whatever) as a solution to that - both as moderator and as source of solutions. If it knows the solution it can answer immediately (plus reference where it got it from), if it doesn’t know the solution it could moderate the human answers (plus learn from them).
That’s fair. You don’t have to compare the behavior. There’s plenty of that in the thread already.
I think the issue is how people got to Stack Overflow. People generally ask Google first, which hopefully would take you somewhere where somebody has already asked your question and it has answers.
Type a technical question into Google. Back in the day it would likely take you to Experts Exchange. Couple of years later it would take you to Stack Overflow. Now it takes you to some AI generated bullshit that scraped something that might have contained an answer, but was probably just more AI generated bullshit.
Either their SEO game is weak, they stopped paying Google as much for result placement, or they’ve just been overwhelmed with limitless nonsense made by bots for the sole purpose of selling advertising space that other bots will look at.
Or maybe I’m wrong and everybody is just asking ChatGPT their technical questions now, in which case god fucking help us all…
It gives decent answer and is still relatively at the top. However, if you need to ask something that isn’t there you’re going to be either intimidated or your question is going to be left unanswered for months.
I’m more inclined to ask questions on sites like Reddit, because it’s something I’m familiar with and there’s far better chance of getting it answered within couple hours.
ChatGPT is also far superior because there’s a feedback loop almost in real time. Doesn’t matter if it gives the wrong answer, it gives you something to work with and try, and you can keep asking for more ideas. That’s much preferable than having to wait for months or even years to get an answer
Understandably, it has become an increasingly hostile or apatic environment over the years. If one checks questions from 10 years ago or so, one generally sees people eager to help one another.
Now they often expect you to have searched through possibly thousands of questions before you ask one, and immediately accuse you if you missed some – which is unfair, because a non-expert can often miss the connection between two questions phrased slightly differently.
On top of that, some of those questions and their answers are years old, so one wonders if their answers still apply. Often they don’t. But again it feels like you’re expected to know whether they still apply, as if you were an expert.
Of course it isn’t all like that, there are still kind and helpful people there. It’s just a statistical trend.
Possibly the site should implement an archival policy, where questions and answers are deleted or archived after a couple of years or so.
human nature remembers negative experiences much better than positive, so it only takes like 5% assholes before it feels like everyone is toxic.
True that! and a change from 2% to 5% may feel much larger than that.
The worst is when you actually read all that questions and clearly stated how they don’t apply and that you already tried them and a mod is still closing your question as a duplicate.
I can’t wait to read gems like “Answered 12/21/2005 you moron. Learn to search the website. No, I wont link it for you, this is not a Q&A website”.
Answers from 2005 that may not be remotely relevant anymore, especially if a language has seen major updates in the TWENTY YEARS since!
More important for frameworks than languages, IMO. Frameworks change drastically in the span of 5-10 years.
🤣
No, they shouldn’t be archived. I say that because technology can change. At some point they added a new sort method which favors more recent upvotes and it helps more recent answers show above old ones with more votes. This can happen on very old posts where everyone else might not use the site anymore. We shouldn’t expect the original asker to switch the accepted answer potentially years down the line.
There’s plenty of things wrong with SE and their community but I don’t think this is one that needs to change.
Google search going to absolute shit is what happened
I also attribute most of this to google. I am used to google a coding question and getting 10 SO results i can quickly scan through. Since a year I only get blogposts about the general behaviour of the thing i was googling.
This is the most likely explanation. It doesn’t make sense to have such a dramatic dropoff in user behavior without an obvious trigger.
I don’t understand. Google search has its issues for sure, but it always shows stack overflow highly when I search programming things.
It’s hostile to new users and when you do ask you will likely not get answer might get scolded or just get closed as duplicate. Then there is the fact that most has answers doesn’t matter if it’s outdated or just bad advice. Pretty much everything has GitHub now. Usually I just go raise the question there if I have a genuine question get an answer from the developers themselves. Or just go to their website api/ library doc they have gotten good lately. Then finally recent addition with chatgpt you can ask just about any stupid question you have and maybe it may give some idea to fix the problem you encounter. Pretty much the ultimate rubber duck buddy.
SO is such a miserable and toxic place that oftentimes I’d rather read more documentation or reach out to someone elsewhere like Discord. And I would never post a question there or comment there.
I’d rather read the docs than just about anything. I love good documentation. I wanna know how and why things work.
The problem is that basically nobody has good docs. They are almost all either incomplete or unreadable.
A lot of companies won’t employ technical writers, who exist to make good, thorough, complete and well-presented documentation… they rather assume their engineers can just write the docs.
And no, no they can’t… very few engineers study the principles of effective communication. They may understand things, but they can’t explain them.
That’s fair. At my company we have technical writers for the external docs and internal docs are usually written by whoever has worked on something and got frustrated that nobody in the company could give them a high level overview, and they had to go through the code for a couple hours.
Tbf though, I’ll take docs that aren’t written super well that tell me how things from our internal libraries should be used. Or just comments. I’ll take comments telling me WHY we are doing something.
I don’t expect our internal docs to be MSDN docs. But I like to read an overview of at least the workflow before I jump into updating a large project.
While I agree, writing good docs is hard for a very intangible benefit. Honestly, it feels like doing the same work twice, with the prospect of doing it again and again in the future as the software is updated. It’s a little demoralizing.
It is hard, I agree. I’m not very good at it myself. But even semi-decent docs are better than googling around or stepping through a decompiled package.
And it’s super useful to new developers, and would have saved me a lot of time and frustration when I was new.
In my experience many of the answers have become out of date. It’s gradually becoming an archive of the old ways of doing things for many languages / frameworks.
Questions are often closed as a duplicate when the linked question doesn’t apply anymore. It’s full of really bad ways of doing things.
I’m not really sure of the solution at this point.
Also ChatGPT.
It’s a last resort for me nowadays.
Yeah, this is what they get and deserve. They rose by providing meaningful, helpful, and technically adept answers to questions. Then they encouraged an abusive moderator culture that marks questions as duplicate, linking to unrelated questions. They also still do not offer easy ways for the knowledge base to be updated as things over time change. Now the company abusing their abusive moderators, causing them to basically go on strike right now.
Here’s hoping the next thing doesn’t suck as much ass as Stack Exchange ultimately has.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse
Based on that, there is no “q&a” type of Fediverse software (a clear answer and a clear “voted best” answer).
Stack overflow had a huge number of “mod tools” to help curate the content (gold nuggets) given. They did not do the step of aggregating content (gold ingots) like Wikipedia has. The marking as duplicate could and should be tempered by “due diligence” or “age of the last time this was asked”, but how it is implemented is up to them.
To be fair™ they did at least do a little bit to deal with the existing answers becoming obsolete by changing the default answer sorting. The “new” (it’s already been at least a year IIRC) sorting pushes down older answers and allows newer answers to rise to the top with fewer votes. That still doesn’t fix the issue that the accepted answer likely won’t change as new ways of doing things become standard, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
One thing I’ve always wondered about stack overflow is why is there only one accepted answer ever possible even though this is programming and there are many different ways of doing any given thing?
Ironic, since one of ChatGPT’s biggest weaknesses is that it’s an archive of the old ways of doing things. You can’t filter by time on ChatGPT, and ChatGPT isn’t being retrained on the latest knowledge live. These aren’t inherent to GPT, so it’s possible that a future iteration will overcome these issues.
On ChatGPT, if a solution doesn’t work, you can ask in real time for a different one. On SO, your post just gets locked for being a duplicate.
Asking in real-time wouldn’t help in this scenario (e.g. some mirror is no longer accessible). If anything, it’d just lead you further astray and waste more time, because GPT’s knowledgebase doesn’t have this knowledge.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of smug, self-satisfied shitheads.
One aspect that I’ve always been unsure about, with Stack Overflow, and even more with sibling sites like Physics Stack Exchange or Cross Validated (stats and probability), is the voting system. In the physics and stats sites, for example, not rarely I saw answers that were accepted and upvoted but actually wrong. The point is that users can end up voting for something that looks right or useful, even if it isn’t (probably less the case when it comes to programming?).
Now an obvious reply to this comment is “And how do you know they were wrong, and non-accepted ones right?”. That’s an excellent question – and that’s exactly the point.
In the end the judge about what’s correct is only you and your own logical reasoning. In my opinion this kind of sites should get rid of the voting or acceptance system, and simply list the answers, with useful comments and counter-comments under each. When it comes to questions about science and maths, truth is not determined by majority votes or by authorities, but by sound logic and experiment. That’s the very basis from which science started. As Galileo put it:
But in the natural sciences, whose conclusions are true and necessary and have nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in the defense of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened to hit upon the truth for himself.
For example, at some point in history there was probably only one human being on earth who thought “the notion of simultaneity is circular”. And at that time point that human being was right, while the majority who thought otherwise were wrong. Our current education system and sites like those reinforce the anti-scientific view that students should study and memorize what “experts” says, and that majorities dictate what’s logically correct or not. As Gibson said (1964): “Do we, in our schools and colleges, foster the spirit of inquiry, of skepticism, of adventurous thinking, of acquiring experience and reflecting on it? Or do we place a premium on docility, giving major recognition to the ability of the student to return verbatim in examinations that which he has been fed?”
Alright sorry for the rant and tangent! I feel strongly about this situation.
But it’s not truth that is implied by voting.
Voting determines the sorting precedence. It’s a way of handling the fact that the site contains more content than a person can read. It’s a way of guiding what they should read first given limited time.
That’s how I interpret it. My question is if it’s generally interpreted that way, or misinterpreted.
Gibson was correct about much of our education system and Galileo was certainly right about the consequences of overvaluing mediocre wit that merely happened to well-timed. what neither of them had to content with, however, was the internet and how social media can combine the inability to reason critically and mediocre wit with crippling insecurities and anti-social personalities to what should be predictable results.
a least Gibson understood that a technocratic future didn’t imply that people’s lives would necessarily improve.
I have to agree with this cause I have run into not a couple but many in recent years where when a proper answer is given, the accepted one despite being flawed or not recommended(Python 2->3 changes for example) anymore, it’s still the highest voted one. And proper answer is in 3rd or 4th place. And it’s where the old r/science shine cause you can properly ask some really specific domain question there and a qualified scientist might just pop up and answer you in detail. ( not that they can’t be wrong, just highly unlikely in current understanding of those topics. )
As alluded to by comments here already, a long coming death.
Will probably go down as a marker of the darker side of tech culture, which, not coincidentally (?) manifested at time when the field was most confused as to what constitutes its actual discipline and whether it was an engineering field at all.
Half of a fuck-ton is still a lot. If they scale down their operational costs they can still run a very comfortable business for a long while on these kinds of numbers.
I think the point is not their viability as a business but their relevance in the industry.
Stack Exchange has been making a large number of bad calls over the past few years. Basically pissing off their moderators. The first one was Monica who actually sued them for it (libel or defamation or something, basically they said she was being transphobic or something when she wasn’t) and they settled. Around that time, possibly before, they removed a site from their Hot Network Questions because of a single tweet. Combine that with them constantly ignoring Stack Exchange Meta (where users and admins are meant to interact for the better of the site and discuss the sites themselves). Moderators were understandably furious when their posts get ignored in the place where Stack Exchange says they’re meant to communicate when a random tweet gets more attention and immediate action.
More recently they’ve given different instructions privately to moderators than what they said publicly with regards to suspected AI content.
I mean, combine all of that with how hostile the users of the site are. Accusing you of not searching before posting and marking your question as a duplicate because they think it is and refusing to listen to why you say it isn’t.
I’m sure they are bad, because general corporation and enshittification cycle, but when someone consistently mentions, “a single tweet” or something like that that they represent as purely innocuous (but without any explanation or link to source), gets my suspicious radar WAY up…
Your suspicion makes sense, let me provide some context.
(Quick aside for the unaware, not necessarily Snapz, Stack Exchange (SE) is the company and family of sites behind Stack Overflow. Stack Overflow is the biggest and was the first and that’s why it doesn’t have the same “Blah Exchange” branding.)
I think this answer on SE Meta describes the Tweets the best. I can’t find good archived links to the tweets and they seem to be deleted now. This answer has screenshots and quotes them. This answer is not the first thing that happens in chronological order but it is the best thing I’ve found with quotes of the tweets. So just go here to see what the tweets were. I guess it was actually about three and not just a single one like I remembered. Summary here,
stack exchange: the #1 site for your questions about dataframes and female treachery
normal website
- IPS: How to approach a friend about his girlfriend asking to sleep with me?
- IPS: How do I tell students at a school I volunteer at to stop flirting with me?
- SciFi: Story about aliens nicknamed ‘Eechees’ who have created a network of tunnels on Mars
2:37 PM - 16 Oct 2018
1 Retweet 38 Likes
Someone then retweeted that,
When people seem confused about why Stack Overflow might not be the most welcoming/comfortable place for people to find answers to programming questions, show them this
[The tweet from above]
This question on Interpersonal Skills (IPS) Meta is (as far as I can find) when the community at large first found out about what happened. Then later there was this question on SE Meta (which the earlier answer is in response to). Both of these posts have most of the context.
Feel free to look over as much as you want, I’ll just post some of the highlights proving the points I was talking about.
From the IPS Meta question, in this answer
Was the removal of this site from the [Hot Network Questions (HNQ)] in response to a Twitter complaint?
Yep.
Oh. Well, that seems… crummy.
Yep. Let me tell you about it.
The initial response to the tweet in an internal discussion wasn’t actually “let’s pull IPS out of the HNQ” it was “Maybe we should finally kill the HNQ or redesign it to make it better.” I think that reworking the HNQ is something that many people want to see - myself included. Should a tweet be the final straw when it’s been discussed so much over the years? No. Am I willing to be OK with that if it means something will change? Begrudgingly, yes… but that’s a separate issue.
[…]
It’s easy to panic and focus on optics instead of tenable solutions, and while it looks really drastic, pulling IPS from the HNQ was a pretty moderate response. Yes, it was a quick decision - like pulling your hand away from a hot stove when it burns. It was the solution we chose - without consulting IPS - because it was effective and easy to implement since it would fix the perceived problem immediately and there was already a technical solution in place for doing it.
[…]
We are going to have some internal discussions to improve how we respond in situations like this in the future. We don’t want Twitter - or Reddit or any other external site - to be where users go to get real change to happen on the network. We love our meta system - the child meta sites and Meta Stack Exchange - and we need those to be where people feel they can come to and get a response from us.
This comment explains the community’s feeling very well I believe.
The immediate response doesn’t set a great example and looks outwardly like we didn’t think things over. I think is a massive, almost impossibly massive understatement. I don’t know if you guys can ever recover any of the massive amount of community trust you lost that day. Finding out that yes, indeed, a twitter complaint is a more powerful force of site governance then months of meta discussions by the most engaged users of the site just means that there’s no point participating at all until whatever dynamic causes this is completly [sic] and provably wiped out.
Also this
[…] Removing IPS and only IPS based on the outrage of a few Twitter users is incredibly unfair to this community and sends a very strong signal that SE considers the opinions and efforts of valuable contributors practically worthless. If y’all do care about this site, then please act like it? […]
From the SE Meta question, this answer
[…]
What happened was that someone called SE out on Twitter for something you could conceivably see as problematic (two questions with out of context bad titles showing next to each other in that list). After that, not only was that change done within 40 minutes of it being pointed out, this happened after MONTHS of engaged users of that site asking for the HNQ to be adressed.
[Lemmy UI does not underline individual links, so here are the three links individually]
- https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/should-we-edit-titles-that-are-not-sufficiently-descriptive
- https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1291/should-we-step-up-our-voting-culture/1294#1294
- https://interpersonal.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1314/moratorium-on-hot-network-questions-until-we-have-greater-control-over-content
Yet, this happens only after Twitter outrage from non-users of the site. Why is that? Even if you have the very best of intentions and had this cooking internally for a long time (which I’m going to just assume for the purposes of this argument - good faith and all), this couldn’t possibly have had less fortunate timing.
I’m not trying to rag on Stack Exchange for doing this, but why was such a massive change made without consulting, collecting feedback from or even notifying the site’s active user base? Why does an engaged user of IPS have to visit twitter of all places to find out SE has cut out more than half of their site’s traffic overnight?
Why wasn’t the community consulted on this? We had discussions on it before, a lot of people came down in favor of restricting IPS from showing up on the sidebar in some fashion or another, and now we get this. No feedback, no discussion. Someone that apparently SE wants to placate made a stink on Twitter, and somehow that’s more effective than months of constructive reasoning in driving change. What reason, if at all, does an engaged user of the site have to trust the community governance model with this?
If it sounds like I’m really annoyed by this its because I am, yes I was in favor of removing IPS from HNQ before, but the circumstances under which it happened is making me lose all hope I have for SE’s leadership’s ability to formulate concrete plans to make changes constructively.
Edit: Make individual links as bullet points in one of the quotes since Lemmy UI does not make it clear it is three links.
Edit 2: Add summary of the tweets so more context is on this post.
