So it became a read-only resource for me, fair enough. Now most of the useful information I find is decorated with comments from some moderator or contributor talking shit about the question or the answer. Somehow I feel the unfriendliness directed towards me, as if I should feel ashamed to want the wrong answer to the wrong question. Then I read the first sentence of this article:

We all want Stack Overflow to be a welcoming and friendly place.

I do, actually. But not sure about all.

Unfortunately, via the powers granted through its reputation system, it also rewarded these smart, competitive, a little ruthless people with tools to restrict and control content that others produce. So smart, competitive, a bit ruthless people control content for the rest of us, who just want to ask and answer questions about tech.

So, a sincere good luck with techno-solutions to a deep-seated, cultural problem over there. I sincerely hope it works. It would be nice to have the old Stack Overflow back.

Or a similar variation, it's a hard problem, and they don't know, so they assume you are a complete idiot and ask you to verify things that were implicit in the question. Like, you said you did X and Y, and it's almost impossible to do those things without doing A and B first, but they give you this patronizing tone saying you should have done A and B first.

Here's another one: you write a decent answer to a question. Someone with a massive score comes along behind you an hour later and takes your answer and elaborates on it a bit. They get the upvote and check, you get a zero. The reason they got the points was because they spend all day gaming Stack Overflow and are happy to take advantage of any way to steal points and so have a high reputation.

I really feel like their data science team is not trying hard enough to find the dyed-in-the-wool pathological sons of bitches that are on Stack Overflow. There are plenty of them on there.

Sometimes you can get more insight on how to solve a problem from a discussion than from an answer. Why and when can be as important as how.

Also, if people dislike your question, even it obeys the rules, it gets down voted. They can dislike your question because they dislike the problem you are going to solve or the way you are trying to do it.

Some comments instead of being related to the question at hand, suggest that you shouldn't solve your problem but instead do things another way. Which can be fine, but doesn't fit well the site format because it doesn't allow discussions.

However, I don't see alternatives. You can ask on reddit but there are not many people willing to answer.

Just the other day I asked a fairly specific question, putting in some effort of writing code examples and add links to relevant documentation and within a day I had a four paragraph, in-depth answer.

No, I did not get any upvotes or smiley-stickers, but I got for free what I wouldn’t even know how to buy.

Moreover, I end up on SO daily when programming.

The utility of SO is second to none and it has been that way for over a decade.

That is pretty amazing in my book.

Apparently it didn't work (I'll not edit people's questions!) so now they'll try automating it. Good luck to them but I'm not seeing them succeed in an area where nobody has.

And, as others said, SO isn't the same as before. It's mostly a homework finder and it doesn't encourage newer versions of code.

They didn't like having to openly apply human judgement so they applied AI. AI that has some human judgement built in. And bias along with it. But now nobody is responsible because the machine did it.

-Attempt to second guess your use case for you. Are you sure you really want to do X? Don't you want to do Y instead? (No thanks, I really must do X and can't do Y because I have Z, A, B and C constraints.)

-Claim your use case is wrong, should not exist, or at the very least is exceedingly niche, and they couldn't possibly imagine why someone would have your use case

-Claim your use case is literally impossible to fulfill with the constraints you've given. While this may well be the case it is a way stronger claim than most people realize.

-If someone does provide an answer to your use case, will scramble to insist that this solution is clumsy and shouldn't have be written in the first place because it could give people wrong ideas.

-Insist you didn't do the research and if you did you'd find the solution is Y. (Yes I did, and it really isn't Y because my problem is X, thank you very much.)

-In the worst case, wrongly mark your question as a duplicate of Y

The strength of SO is that it is purely a question and answer website: I give question, you give answer. Forums always sucked because the question askers were often new and inexperienced and formulated questions the wrong way, and the entrenched users were patronizing and insisted a certain way of solving questions be used or say useless stuff like "I don't owe any of my time to you" (yeah well why are you bothering writing this post in the first place then?). With SO's system of questions, answers and comments, everything is clear or clarified, all the chitchat is dispensed with and no room is given to subjective stuff like 'is your question correct?' Because no matter how good of a hacker you are, your knowledge can't possibly cover 100% of all computer programmers' use cases.

I'm not pessimistic as other people as to the future of SO and I still think it is and will be an invaluable resource in the following years but if trends of the YX problem go for the worse it could mean a return to the forums that sucked.

> The problem is the tone the reader experiences. Most of the time, it doesn’t appear that commenters are actively trying to make their comment condescending, dismissive, or any of the other subtle variations of unwelcoming we see. These are people earnestly trying to help others, even if their tone is off.

What tone the reader experiences and how they deal with it is entirely up to them. I am fine with on a site that abusive language is flagged, but something that is perceived to be unfriendly by a robot. This is just folly.

I certainly won't be contributing anymore. I don't want to be on a site that has a robot flagging human interaction.

EDIT: Abusive language filters usually don't work that well. I put in someone's real name into a system and the system flagged it for "abuse" their surname was "Cummings".

Also the term "faggots" (which in the UK is a meal you can buy in the supermarket) has been censored on social platforms.

https://www.rt.com/uk/468436-google-censors-faggots-peas/

Because guess what the context in which you are using a word is important. So most of theses places can't get abusive filtering right. They won't get this right either.