An interesting but flawed article I encountered on lobste.rs.
I agree with and recognise its premise - that SO started to feel hostile and decline, before AI "attacked" it.
Maybe the article isn't flawed; maybe it just doesn't match my personal expectations/wishes: I would have expected more details on how the late self/auto-moderation reputation game damaged SO. Instead, the article fades out waxing poetically on how developers long for 'authentic community' where we help each other.
Put differently, it appeared to promise it would deliver on the flawed reputation game.
Instead, I'll put in my personal anecdotal experiences of this as an SO user.
I am an 'average' SO user, doing a mix of the three 'passive consumption', 'asking questions', and occasionally answering or commenting on questions I have trench-warfare experience on / 'been there too, did this'.
My SO experience as the years progressed, is that more and more my attempts at relevant contributions would be flagged/killed/removed on spurious judgements and vague-unclear justifications.
The actions reeked of being motivated by "if I moderate/remove N items, I meet my quota", instead of being grounded in valid concern. And of being based on literal interpretations instead of intent ("TECHNICALLY, it is possible to flag this contribution according to rule #237, and since it earns me a cookie point, I'll do it because nothing stops me").
The original intent behind that entire system was to ensure quality contributions.
But the actual effect of it being applied this way, just conditioned me to not be bothered to add contributions, with the feeling that at best I would get hassle to be able to contribute, and that instead I was producing dead-in-the-water cannon-fodder for a reputation-farming moderator.
I had hoped the featured article would shed some more light on this, but it never really dug into the subject, just referred to it as accepted fact.
billy99k•1d ago
It did for me. If I'm trying to figure out a new API or why something isn't working, SO was my first choice. Now? AI.
fifticon•1d ago
I agree with and recognise its premise - that SO started to feel hostile and decline, before AI "attacked" it. Maybe the article isn't flawed; maybe it just doesn't match my personal expectations/wishes: I would have expected more details on how the late self/auto-moderation reputation game damaged SO. Instead, the article fades out waxing poetically on how developers long for 'authentic community' where we help each other. Put differently, it appeared to promise it would deliver on the flawed reputation game.
Instead, I'll put in my personal anecdotal experiences of this as an SO user. I am an 'average' SO user, doing a mix of the three 'passive consumption', 'asking questions', and occasionally answering or commenting on questions I have trench-warfare experience on / 'been there too, did this'. My SO experience as the years progressed, is that more and more my attempts at relevant contributions would be flagged/killed/removed on spurious judgements and vague-unclear justifications.
The actions reeked of being motivated by "if I moderate/remove N items, I meet my quota", instead of being grounded in valid concern. And of being based on literal interpretations instead of intent ("TECHNICALLY, it is possible to flag this contribution according to rule #237, and since it earns me a cookie point, I'll do it because nothing stops me").
The original intent behind that entire system was to ensure quality contributions. But the actual effect of it being applied this way, just conditioned me to not be bothered to add contributions, with the feeling that at best I would get hassle to be able to contribute, and that instead I was producing dead-in-the-water cannon-fodder for a reputation-farming moderator.
I had hoped the featured article would shed some more light on this, but it never really dug into the subject, just referred to it as accepted fact.