It's cool, but I couldn't get into it - and I usually get into all of these sorts of sites. Why? People seem to answer questions almost instantaneously and as a new user I can't do anything to flagrantly incorrect answers. As a new user, I am next to powerless on there - at least on HN the only real "power" held back is downvoting. So I'm just a reader of SO and not a contributor - which is a shame really.
That brings up my only real beef with StackOverflow. Since the person who asks the question gets to pick the "correct" answer, you tend to see lots of questions with absolutely terrible advice highlighted in green with a little check mark next to it.
It's easy to see why this happens. After all, the one person in the world least qualified to identify the correct answer to a given question is the one who asked it.
It's easy to see why this happens. After all, the one person in the world least qualified to identify the correct answer to a given question is the one who asked it.
That depends on the context though. If the person is asking a question because something isn't working, and an answer solves the problem, they are then the best person to qualify whether the answer was correct.
Though yes, if you are asking a question from a more academic perspective, then you wouldn't expect the person asking to be the best judge of the right answer.
You'll often see the first answer that comes close being accepted, even though it's fundamentally flawed and doesn't actually work.
Other times, the best answer is something along the lines of "You're approaching the problem wrong.", such as in "I'm storing customer IDs as a comma separated list in a column. How do I join that to the Customer table?"
Too many people will offer up horribly complicated solutions that technically do what the questioner asked, but the real correct answer is "Normalize your schema."
If you asked a mechanic to fix some broken pipe on your car and he used a bit of duct tape to do it.. even if it worked, would you say it was a "good answer"?
I often see the "Accepted" answer with 2 or 3 points, and then a question below that with 10+ points which has more work put into it over a longer time, so the first answer was a quick solution to fix the asker's question, but other users put work into a better answer and the answerer ends up getting points for that as well. This is great because it creates a fast answer (good thing) and a good answer that takes longer. (also good.)
As some of the comments on this thread allude to, it depends on the frame of reference. I'll assume you mean the customer is in a professional garage seeking a permanent fix and has the money to pay for it. In that case is duct tape a"good answer?" I think we both agree its not. But if the person were stuck on the side of a road and a mechanic drove by and that was all he had or if the person had no money to pay for a new hose, well, then duct tape might be a good answer (or the least of evils).
So to point out the obvious with these q/a sites, caveat emptor. One has to look at the context of the site and the question(s) asked to determine what is "right" or "wrong" and what assumptions are made, for right or wrong.
One method to fight "the fastest gun" problem, is to cherrypick good questions, and actually write well-written, detailed essays, along with samples. Although more time consuming, these answers usually float to the top in rather short time frames -adding more quality.
I've tried this approach; taking the time to give a detailed answer with reasoning behind my choices and explanations for areas that might be unclear. Two things happen:
1 - The fast, but "good enough" answer wins out for the short term 10+ votes (and "Accepted status), then the question falls into the mire, occasionally floating to the surface via a Google search, where I might get one or two votes.
2 - My answer is accepted, enough that noone else bothers to partake in the question, and it falls off the radar having received maybe 1 or 2 votes.
In terms of getting good answers into the system, I guess things are working as intended. In terms of creating an engaging experience for the questioner and answerer, this seems sub-optimal.
and actually write well-written, detailed essays, along with samples.
Unless the question is on a topic I love, that makes it into work. Is the point of SO to gain points to look clever in front of your peers or to actually help people? I'd rather just write a post blog to send someone to, since it stops other people editing it and I'd get all the credit and the traffic.
Perhaps I'll give it another try - maybe it's settled down a lot since launch when pretty much every question was getting a quick fire answer in minutes.
It is often difficult to find good (easy) questions to answer quickly because they get answered so fast.
One solution is to ask questions - you can get reputation for that as well. Once you have reputation, you can down vote stuff.
Another is to look for difficult questions that haven't been answered. You can even get a badge for answering a question that's been open for more than 60 days (or something along those lines).
I realized I shouldn't complain without giving it another try. So I did. And.. perhaps it's just because I'm primarily a Rubyist and UNIX-dweller (the site seems a lot stronger for those living in the Microsoft world) but there's some rather crufty code in there coming from high karma users. Not only that, but the majority of questions are getting these "quick fix" answers well within an hour of the question going up rather than measured, educational responses that really help.
It's "question & answer" versus "learning." SO is the former. But answers alone do not equate to solid learning. Everyone can read Wikipedia articles on medicine all day, but it can't compete with the wisdom a professor or doctor can give you.
The scoring doesn't help. Usenet was pretty cool in the day because anyone could submit an answer and bad answers would be questioned by people with experience (many forums are still like this, and Hacker News is very much like this despite the points). On Stack Overflow, even if you have enough points to comment, it seems like hardly anyone bothers and there's little "calling out" of sloppy answers.
I haven't regretted trying it though. It's a well designed site and there are some great Q&As. I suspect in certain disciplines it's very useful. But, for me, I've realized working on my books and other documentation will be time better spent than having to play a game for points answering questions against the clock on a social network when I'd rather just help and teach folks instead. So, I tried..!
