Could we please be a bit nicer to new users?There is a distinct decline in the level of civility here. Some of this is due to new users coming in and posting spam and other nonsense, but the offtopic and downvote buttons are doing a pretty good job of keeping this under control.
Unfortunately, a lot of this is coming from more experienced users, and the site's built-in moderation system is not (and probably cannot) handle this very well. Folks are rushing to pound new users down with "this belongs on meta!", "this is off topic", "this is a duplicate!" and "read the FAQ!". All this, of course, is accompanied by a flurry of downvotes. This is not very welcoming to new users who don't know about meta, or what is offtopic, or the FAQ.
Now I am not proposing that we just allow offtopic, meta, or duplicate questions. However, I think we could be gentler in the way we express these sorts of things. Explain what meta and the FAQ are and provide useful links. Just using please and thank-you when asking folks to read the FAQ or post something on meta would be an improvement. I also think we could rein in the downvoting a bit. Not that we shouldn't vote stuff down, but unless a new user's post is clearly spam, voting it down to -1 or -2 should be sufficient to send a message without piling on.
I like Stack Overflow and I want it to become a resource for everyone, not just an elitist site for people who were in the private beta.
While I agree, there are a few points to note:
Now, like I said, we should take it into account. But the fact remains, the up/down vote system is the core of how we get the "good stuff" up and the "bad stuff" down. It is not designed to be a personal attack against the users in question.
Looking at "exhibit A"..
Can we please remember that we are supposed to be adults, we are supposed to be problem-solvers by trade. So, can we try to apply some brain cells to things please?
I recommend some type of cookie-cutter response that we can just copy-and-paste depending on the mistake made. For example:
"This type of question is considered a 'poll' and is outside Stack Overflow's scope. Please rephrase the question so that it can be answered definitively or it will be closed."
...or something like that. I think that the moderators on javaranch.com do something similar when their newbies break the rules.
I recommend some type of cookie-cutter response that we can just copy-and-paste depending on the mistake made.
I agree with Outlaw Programmer, but would add that it would be useful if there was a menu or similar to quickly (and politely) allow "problem post" identification.
For example, if you see that a post is a duplicate, you hit a button, enter the URL/ID of the post duplicated. Successive viewers can then agree or disagree. The question poster will get a canned and polite notification.
So instead of templating being a burden on individual users, have it be a function of the system for the most common problem posts.
Offhand, those seem to be:
In essence this would be a votable, post classification tag.
Quick and painless for advanced users... just choose the classification from a list of canned ones, or vote up the existing classification(s) if you agree.
It would be friendly and helpful to the new(er)bies. They would see "15 people think this post belongs in the uservoice section. Do you want to move it there?" or "107 people think you should probably add more detail to your question. Edit now?"
shrug
I definitely believe this is a problem. I recommended this site to my sister recently. She is an inexperienced programmer, and her project director switched them from Visual Studio to Borland mid-project. She has a master's degree in mathematics and has only taken 1-2 college level programming classes, but she has been added onto a programming project as one of her tours in the entry level program of her department. She was struggling with some of the differences between the two development environments. She did find some help on certain Borland sites, but shte had been largely at a loss for some of the errors she was running into. That's when I sent her here.
I've been following Stack Overflow since Jeff Atwood [1] started talking about it on Coding Horror [2]. I have to confess I am more lurker/observer than anything else. I was extremely pleased at how quickly questions were answered, and she joined up on my recommendation.
Her first question was almost immediately attacked as being homework, while also being voted down and criticized for its format. While some of the reasoning (expect the homework stuff) was accurate, the method in which it was presented was wholly inappropriate, especially for a new user. She was almost immediately turned off by the responses, and felt like she should return to her forum resources.
Thankfully, a few long time users came by, ANSWERED HER QUESTION, and encouraged her to keep participating. They redeemed both her opinion and my own about the site. There was a night and day difference between how the users, who basically took the same actions in showing her a better way to ask the question, responded.
While I definitely believe we need to be using up/down votes as they are intended, if members can't be respectfully helpful to new users, we need some new way of communicating the proper way to use the website.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_AtwoodHere are a couple of requests on UserVoice.com
Admin response
... if site behaviors are not self-evident, we have failed....
Jeff,
Maybe it's time to acknowledge that users need clean guidelines?
If people keep asking such questions, maybe you really failed to explain what Stack Overflow is.
How can this be obvious?:
I'm a newbie and a few days ago I asked How many reputation points do I need to do X? [1], At this point I had already read the FAQ, browsed by the page and even answered a couple of questions.
I still get a canned "Try looking at the FAQ here [2]".
Having read the FAQ I felt a little bad, until someone else clarified that there is an "Unofficial FAQ".
I think that there should be a really big (or at least the same size as the other ones) link to a real FAQ which includes all the information in the Unofficial FAQ.
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/64407/how-many-reputation-points-do-i-need-to-do-x**
I, being a n00b myself, didn't realize there was already a system called Badges (yes, I see the big button up top, I just hadn't gotten around to investigating it). Below is my original suggestion, but now that I know there is already a badges system implemented...
I suggest we extend Badges to incorporate tests on various subject matters, instead of just auto-generated values, as it does now. Just like real boy-scout badges. Learn how to tie a knot, take the knot tying test, get a badge. Read the FAQ, take the FAQ test, get a badge.
Simple!
(Read below for a wordier way of saying the same thing.)
**
Implement a n00b training and rating system as part of the user account. When a person makes a new account they start out as a n00b, with a score of 0. If they want to increase that score, they have to take tests. The score on the test advances your n00b score. There are multiple tests in different topic areas, and the various tests are weighted differently.
For example, there could be a test about basic site navigation. It could be a low valued test, so even if you get a 100% score on the test, it only boosts your n00b level a little.
Another test could be proving you know the answers from the various FAQs. This could be a medium weighted score.
Another test could be proving you know how the various social systems work, and what socially acceptable behaviour is. It would help to have a "coding standard" type document that covers this, so that people who don't just "get it" can learn it.
This kind of system is already in place on a lot of forum software, but they rate the users on how many posts, giving them various levels of experience, starting at n00b and ending at SysOp (or Admin for you youngsters).
This will be an additional rating system to reputation, and it's opt-in. Reputation is socially controlled. User experience level is something you can learn and test your way to success with, whether anyone likes what you have to say or not.
In this way, you can prove that you've read the FAQ, and understand it enough to answer the questions in the test, and get the appropriate "scout badge". That way, when people are answering your questions, they know at what level to start.. A respondant might think "Should I mention the FAQ to this guy?.. Oh, no, I see he's read the FAQ already, and he's still asking this question. Let me think about it a little deeper, or see if the FAQ is ambiguous or lacking in content.", etc.
I think a system like that would be very cool. You could even have technical topic area "certifications" that can contribute to that... So a user can prove that they know what the heck they are talking about in C++ [1] or Win32 COM [2] programming. The tests could be user generated, and people could add new ones, evolving the site as it goes on.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29Maybe Jeff Atwood [1] and Joel Spolsky [2] could put together a video tutorial explaining how Stack Overflow works and explaining some of the do's and don'ts.
From seeing a video of Joel giving a presentation of FogBugz [3] and listening to the podcast I imagine they could make it humorous enough that people would watch the whole thing and informative enough that they could raise the level of n00bism here.
In fact, I think it's such a good idea that I've made a uservoice suggestion for creating a tutorial video [4].
And it's been declined: "if the site isn't somewhat self-evident, we have failed -- video or not".
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_AtwoodDisagree.
We've all been noobs, as superwiren stated, that's certainly true.
But there's a correct way to be a noob, and a wrong way.
When you visit a new place, you should spend some time just looking around and absorbing the culture. That way, you'll learn how to behave in (local) community. When you ask the first question or give a first answer, you'll do it the right way.
The other way is to start dancing fandango in a crowded metro. Generally, this is somehow frowned upon.
Many commenters are forgetting that for every noob that doesn't know how to behave there are ten of the first sort. Kudos to them! And to show them that we appreciate them, we should scream at the latter sort even more loudly!
This is not very welcoming to new users who don't know about uservoice, or what is offtopic, or the unofficial FAQ.
How can we explain this to them when having discussions in the "answers" area is strongly discouraged? I say let 'em find out what this site is. It doesn't take long. And if getting voted down makes someone cry, then he shouldn't use this site at all (or Digg or Reddit or ...).
I am a noob. I've been registered for less than 24 hours after finding Stack Overflow on Reddit [1], and I've been impressed with both the level of civility and usefulness of many of the questions and answers. I'm also very intrigued by the reputation system and the inventiveness of the site's designers in trying to design a system that keeps up the site's quality and doesn't let it devolve into something like Digg [2].
Both of these things encouraged me to try to engage with the site (in spite of the OpenID [3] painfulness) vs. just lurk and go away. I have 63 mod points now, so I don't think the 15-point up-vote hurdle is too high at all if a dumbass like me can pass it.
In short, from the noob perspective I don't think there's a big problem, but I do appreciate Chris' advice that you all be nice to us (except for the cretins with the "How do I use Windows?" questions). The system is complicated enough that the real, AKA "unofficial", FAQ really needs to be linked to in the menu (as levhita suggests), not the useless one (or merge the two).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RedditIf lots of people are asking the same questions about Stack Overflow, then that's potentially a usability problem.
And if lots of people are asking (and answering) poll-type questions, then that is apparently an interesting use-case.
I think there is this inherent fear--perhaps a subconscious one learned after spending time on Digg [1], Reddit [2], Hacker News [3], and other similar community-run sites -- of a flood of new users decreasing the quality of posts on a site like this. If anything, such a fear dates back all the way to the Eternal September [4] of Usenet, back in 1993.
This fear leads to an overreaction when people see what they think are junk questions posted by newer users -- whether the questions are simply offtopic, or perhaps trollish or ignorant, or perhaps highly subjective. People are afraid of the quality of the site being ruined by such things, and whether justified or not, they break out the downvotes in droves.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiggI am a newbie myself, and I really like the idea around the site. Reputation-based is really great and fun and makes it like something of a Wikipedia 2.0 in my opinion. There is just one thing that annoys me a bit. I saw a couple of newbies being heavily downvoted without any answer or explanation. While this has not yet happened to me personally, I can imagine how frustrating this is. What about downvotes requiring mandatory comment? Now I agree that 'RTFM' would be enough of a comment - still it would definitively look less cowardly.
If you don't agree... Well... Weapons Free ;)
Maybe users should have to post an answer before they can post a question. Then they would have had to start using the site before they post bad questions.
I would almost go so far as to require users to post more answers than questions. Because as far as I can tell anyone who actually uses this site has answered more questions than they have asked.
I disagree. Voting down should be used judiciously but I think it's still important that it be used. I think the system already has enough built in protections in this regard. Down votes are costly to the voter (-1 rep) and have only a small effect on the rep of the target (-2 rep).
Not to pick on the author of the given example, but take a look at his user page [1]. He's posted 1 question and 1 answer. His answer has 0 net votes and his question has -5 net down votes. Yet he has, just now, 47 total rep (which, incidentally, is enough to allow him to vote answers up or down, per his complaint/question). Given this I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that people voting his question down represents "being hard on him".
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/users/13185/benprewI have to agree, although I've probably been short with a few, but how hard is it to search before you ask? I marked at least 8 posts as duplicates in just the last 2 hours.
I just found this discussion right after being 'downed' at 'uservoice' question...
Hmm... I can express some feelings after this all:
Being noob here doesn't mean being noob in computing and communities. It should be not a requirement to "lurk first - participate later". This is what noobs very often hear from nerds and pseudo-elites. Good site must accept anyone with positive mind from the first minute. And yes, normally 'lurking' applies to the sites with close-minded jerkish societies, which I hope is not a case here.
It would be nice just to forbid down-voting newbe, especially when he has low reputation points yet.
Yes, just a hint (in form of tags) would be nice to point newbe to right direction.
Noob, just came to the site, sees questions-discussions-polls like "What the best features of X are" with high votes, and thinks this is legal on this site.
I don't think this site is designed for elite members, so you should be more polite and forgiving to new members. Normally communities tend to be extending and this, I think, is a main goal. Otherwise so many noobs will leave your site for ever.
Voting system isn't very well designed, you should admit it and try to make it even better. Sometimes noobs may give you good advise. (Sometimes - may not).
There's something to do with question votes. I'm afraid, some people don't even realize that this is not a polling counter. :)
Thank you for your attention.
I know I stopped dead in my tracks when I noticed that to post anything on uservoice I had to create yet another user account and that I couldn't even use my OpenID ID like I could on Stack Overflow.
I mean, if the websites are so closely related, wouldn't it make sense for them to behave in the same manner or even better to actually share the same user system?
As it stands, asking a question on UserVoice [1] is more difficult than asking one on Stack Overflow and many people discover Stack Overflow directly and only see UserVoice later (if they even do). Given that, is it so surprising that people go for the easiest and just post their questions on Stack Overflow?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserVoiceNote to some of us:
Some coders are childish and uncivil, as if what we're doing in this business is so darn important that shaming others is justified when we're even mildly annoyed.
You may disagree with someone. You may feel that they have stupidly blundered into the path of your high-speed expertise. But ask yourself:
Are they a bad person?
Have you never done something stupid?
Have you appreciated a helping hand?
We live in a world where some people murder other people over their beliefs. If someone has so much in common with you as to ask you a question, even if it's not a very smart question, do they deserve to be slammed? If you were asking, would you deserve it?
Remember, we have all been n00bs. It has never hurt anyone to be polite.
On the other hand you would expect new (and old) users to do a little investigation before posting, and trying to see if the question already exists somewhere.
The growth of the community depends upon new users. New users to test the waters, grow the fields of discussion. I posted something I knew to be off-topic and got slammed. For new users, perhaps there should be a lower limit to the times any one question or comment can be down-voted. A reputation that was built in three days was destroyed in less than 5 minutes; just from trying to feel out the limits.
Obviously, the site isn't entirely programming but, if a question edges too far from this it gets raped.
Being pretentious, snobby, mean, and generally negative is not a way to build a helpful community.
I'm a noob(ish) and I read the FAQ before I asked anything. I think RTFM is a reasonable request. I didn't come here to be spoon-fed.
This site is quite intuitive and there aren't any challenging new concepts to learn about how it operates so there is really not much excuse, apart from laziness, to use it as it is intended to be used.
Having said that, there's no excuse for rudeness. A simple "Please Read the FAQ" should suffice.
If that doesn't work there's always justfuckinggoogleit.com/
Wikipedia has a solution to such a problem. This is done by a nice short welcome message explaining the importance of a few rules, rather than simply pointing out the FAQs, and tons of best practices papers and guidelines it has. On top of this, whenever a user makes a mistake he is given a chance to correct it by opening a dispute page. Perhaps we can consider something like that here. If a question is a duplicate, give the user a chance to defend it and maybe even go so far as to stop downvotes on a disputed page? Because on Stack Overflow, once a question is disputed, downvotes seem to fly off faster than the speed of thought.
So what we need is a template for disputed content. A few such categories would be:
Once a post gets tagged with any of the above tags, a small block explaining the details of such a tag should appear by default on the question itself with an automatic link to a resolution page where the community can vote and discuss it. If consensus is gained, the question can be deleted without getting voted down. This will preserve the reputation points of the user as well and this will make the responses of the question more clean, as right now the discussions on such disputed questions seem to be more about the dispute and less about the question. Just my 2 pyas.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UserVoiceI think Stack Overflow should really be strict regarding the quality of the submissions in this site.
Look at Digg [1] now. They grew very very fast, and they didn't mind about the quality of the submissions and now look at where they are. Submissions are junk photos not related to NEWS whatsoever.
Compare this to Hacker News [2]. They are very strict about the quality of the submissions. They have moderators who can down vote the article right away, they have complete control over the articles. They are growing fast. Very fast. But the submissions are still of high quality.
Let's see what's happening on Stack Overflow . Obviously this site is like Yahoo Answers [3] but for coders. And let's be honest. Anyone can access this, not just coders.
Stack Overflow is growing super fast. And if Stack Overflow will tolerate the trolls, I'm afraid we will be heading to what Digg is now. Digg has high quality submissions + junk submissions that managed to get 5k+ diggs. If Stack Overflow tolerate trolls, Stack Overflow will still have high quality questions and answers + troll-like questions and answers that can also manage to have 100+ votes.
Let's follow what Hacker News is right now. Let's be like them.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiggAs Thevs said
Being noob here doesn't mean being noob in computing and communities.
I have only registered and asked my first question [1] today. However, I am a senior developer (architect) with 21 years experience in numerous programming languages and technologies. I have found answers to other problems on this site and various others but never before needed to raise a new question. I have found that when Stack Overflow is listed first by Google, I get a warm feeling that the help will be of good quality so I chose Stack Overflow to raise my first question. However, I only ever search such sites for specific information. I don't browse sites otherwise. (I wouldn't be allowed to spend work time doing so and choose not to do so outside of work -this comment is an exception to prove the rule.)
Today, I had a problem that I needed to solve before leaving work. Having read the relevant formal documentation, experimented and googled for a few hours for related infomation, I raised a question on Stack Overflow.
I have to confess that pressure of my deadline meant that I did not spend any time working out what the various links and buttons on the question submission screen did, and I didn't find my way to any FAQ until later. I also found that my (employer dictated) Internet Explorer 6 did not display the question entry page properly - some fields displayed on top of each other. Somehow, although I quoted my sample code and could see that I had done so in the preview, after I had submitted my question, I found that the code was no longer quoted. Almost immediatly someone, commented rather abruptly that I'd failed to quote my code and voted my question down giving it a negative score. The commenter did not offer an answer or any advice on how to correct my presentation problem.
Shortly afterwards, some more helpful reader just quietly corrected the layout of my question.
Within a couple of hours my question had attracted more than 50 readers, 3 partial answers and a positive vote. One contributor tried to give a complete answer but someone else pointed out that he was wrong. Five hours later my question on a very common Java library remains unanswered, so I suspect it will prove to be a good question - I actually suspect a bug in the Sun [2] libraries.
So my new user's view is as follows (and of course it is a subjective personal view):
Here is another very-new-noob who is experiencing (at least moderately) this same thing. I started by just wanting to be helpful. Then after realizing that I need reputation points to post comments, I started focusing on unanswered questions, hoping to get up-voted for helpful answers.
It seems like some people ask a question and then just forget to vote for any answers at all. I've even started learning concepts on the fly, to try and answer questions that I previously had no knowledge of ( LINQ [1] for example). I think I will stop trying this though.
I've done my best to follow the rules, make my posts meaningful and helpful, and not repost what others have already said (even though I have on a few occasions).
As of right now, the ONLY vote I have is a down-vote on an answer [2] I provided that, at the time, I thought was a perfectly acceptable answer.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Integrated_QueryStack Overflow is perfect the way it is.
It's not a place to "chill-out" and have fun. It's a place for programmers and software developers to share their skills and learn new skills.
There are plenty of other forums and tutorials to learn programming for starters. Stack Overflow simply isn't the place to start learning about programming.
As a general rule of thumb, if the concept of a stack overflow doesn't ring a bell for you, you might want to learn a bit more about programming before posting here.
When I started, I asked a couple of meta questions on Stack Overflow and people were nice about their answers. But, and I think this is an important point, I think the questions were NOT obvious and there was not a good place to get an answer to the question.
For example, I asked TODAY [1] about how to get a better understanding of Stack Overflow and was directed to the " offical FAQ [2]".
What I absolutely don't get is how come that official FAQ is not the page that new users see when click the FAQ link at the top of every page. I REALLY don't get it.
I wanted to learn, but I had to ask a question on Meta Stack Overflow to learn.
So until that is corrected, I think new users should be cut some slack. Not all of us are idiots or lazy.
And even the official FAQ needs work IMHO. I know it is a work in progress, but I am only arguing that patience with newbies should be the order of the day. That's what a community it; without it you don't have a community.
[1] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/2463/is-there-documentation-on-how-to-use-stack-overflowNew user here!
I just wanted to say that I haven't yet noticed any "noob-bashing" yet. I've asked a couple of questions already that probably have been asked before. The replies I have received have been prompt and informative.
If there indeed is a problem with established members of your "sandbox" being rude or elitist, I have not noticed it and am glad, because this would probably have made me turn away to another site that doesn't condone that sort of kindergarten tactic.
This site so far has been great, and so have the members! I'm glad there is a place I can come and post a question without having to be told to "read the #*($ manual" or "Use the search". Sometimes, what people need are just quick answers to help them along their way.
Is this lazy? That can be debated to no end. But is it helpful? Of course! And I hope to see this community thrive on that principle. There is no need for experienced programmers to feed their ego by kicking the noobs around. And I want to re-iterate that I'm glad it hasn't happened to me.
I've used Stack Overflow for all of a week, and today is my last day (I always keep a link for at least a week).
I've answered a few questions for people, found the reference for the question I asked. I posed an opinion question and the results were interesting:
The answers were interesting, in that I didn't expect them and made me think. Unfortunately, there are no other answers. The question is still available at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/298076/what-is-the-coolest-aspect-of-your-favorite-language-closed
I'm a noob. I've been following this site for a few days and so far I really like the format and the quality of topics and answers.
From what I've seen so far there most of the answers to questions are constructive and well thought out (exhibit A in the original post doesn't work). If Stack Overflow was just another forum site flooded with questions from people that won't do any footwork before bombarding a board with questions, I wouldn't have bookmarked it.
The FAQ was useful for me, maybe add some of the good examples of bad questions to the FAQ for us noobs too.. It might be fun to go through those too.
I agree, and I experienced this. I posted something off-topic and marked it as such. It was sufficient to have it downvoted, I don't need somebody flaming me to not post content like that on here. The training is built into the system.
As best I can tell, they're hoping to get some sympathy from other veterans to their cause to help their own rep.
I'm just trying to get to a point where I can upvote interesting questions and answers, and I'm not sure how to best do that when I'm not the quickest or most authoritative response.
Just imagine the poster is someone else in your company.
Give 'naughty' noobs the same bland, negative, unemotional response you'd give to a "boss" who asked you to refactor code in some moderately inane way because they simply didn't understand that of which they spoke.
No need to even be supportive (although that can be nice) but flaming people for mistakes of form, judgement or fact is behaviour that should be beneath real problem solvers. Use the down-vote judiciously and the site will flow better than if we indulge our frustrations on others.
"That is a question that you'll find an ongoing discussion about here" is a polite and straight forward way to deal with a duplicate post that avoids offending anyone.
Practising such pat phrases will serve all of us well in our workplaces too. If you don't regularly need to politely and effectively deal with people who should know better misusing their opportunities you have worked in better places than me.
Anyway that's my two cents worth.
I haven't been here long, but I see:
In general, I feel there are too many people with rights they shouldn't have.
Reputation is far too easy to obtain and there are a lot of people drunk with power.
I don't trust 90% of people, why should Stack Overflow?
I think there's nothing wrong with closing (as duplicate, belongs on UserVoice or whatever else) a newcomer's questions. Of course, adding a comment explaining why is always nice, but I think the main thing is to just not downvote.
If the question is made in good faith, and it's going to get closed in another 30 seconds anyway, why bother downvoting it? Does it deserve it? Does the poster deserve to have the negative votes on his record, simply because he did not yet know how Stack Overflow works?
I try to reserve downvotes for questions that are either
But a suggestion to improve Stack Overflow shouldn't be downvoted. It should simply be closed and directed to UserVoice. An off-topic question shouldn't be downvoted, but closed (as not-programming-related, or moved to Server Fault in some cases.
I often see questions that get downvoted because they belong on UserVoice, are not programming related, or whatever else. When I do, I generally leave a comment saying that there's no need for downvoting as well as closing the question, and encouraging people to bump the votes back up.
I just want to include myself as an example of this:
unless a new user's post is clearly spam, voting it down to -1 or -2 should be sufficient to send a message without piling on.
Now, I do think I had to be voted down, and the community should express itself so I can see if I fit in or not. But, as far as I can see, the reputation system is also associated with spam and bot prevention up to a certain ammount of points. So, until that is reached by any valid user this should be the focus: making the user able to use basic resources, such as voting, posting links, etc.
Maybe even the system should change a little bit on that sense. One thing is getting reputation to be able to moderate. Another thing is to achieve "human rights" in the system. And that should not be too hard for newbies.
Anyway, yet again, just my two cents as a newcomer.
I recommend some type of cookie-cutter response that we can just copy-and-paste depending on the mistake made.
I agree with Outlaw Programmer, but would add that it would be useful if there was a menu or similar to quickly (and politely) allow "problem post" identification.
For example, if you see that a post is a duplicate, you hit a button, enter the url/id of the post duplicated. Successive viewers can then agree or disagree. The question poster will get a canned and polite notification.
So instead of templating being a burden on individual users, have it be a function of the system for the most common problem posts.
Offhand, those seem to be:
- Duplicate
- Belongs in user voice
- Offtopic
- Not a question
- Unclear question (not enough detail to respond, etc.)
- ...More as post requirements develop
In essence this would be a votable, post classification tag?
Quick and painless for advanced users...just chose the classification from a list of canned ones, or vote up the existing classification(s) if you agree.
It would be friendly and helpful to the new(er)bies. They would see "15 people think this post belongs in the uservoice section. Do you want to move it there?" or "107 people think you should probably add more detail to your question. Edit now?"
I would definitely support a template-message approach. I haven't participated much here, I admit (yeah, I know, I'm a n00b commenting on a thread about n00bs), but I have over 2 1/2 years' experience on Wikipedia, much of it in vandal-patrol. The template message system set up there works pretty well, and what I see in the suggestions from Outlaw Programmer and ee is a kind of combination between Wikipedia's system and Digg's Bury menu. Am I right? If so, I'd be 100% behind that method.
I think civility could be improved in general, not just regarding questions about Stack Overflow. For example, the first question I asked here was a CSS question [1] and I got a rude and slightly off-topic answer: "if you say liquid that usually means percent based dimensions, start associating things like that in your head" (I had not even said "liquid", and in the end there was no satisfactory answer to that question, which suggests it was not dumb).
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/298460/firefox-css-given-2-divs-how-can-i-float-the-second-one-to-the-right-using-statI agree, thanks for bringing this up. I have at times been attacked personally just for making a logical statement. It's not always whether you are newbie or not, but it can be other subjective things such as if your question is liked or disliked (for example, Jon Skeet-related questions seem to get a lot of cheers here) regardless of its merits), which is why I brought up a related discussion in question Why is there a double standard regarding non-programming related questions at Stack Overflow? [1].
I am sensing a much higher civility in this thread, probably due to the way the question was posed.
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/629340/why-is-there-a-double-standard-regarding-non-programming-related-questions-at-soJust something I wanted to throw in here.
I know it's a bit outdated, but anyone who's asking questions on the 'net in a technical forum should still read How To Ask Questions The Smart Way [1].
Specifically of consequence to this discussion:
Before You Ask
Before asking a technical question by e-mail, or in a newsgroup, or on a website chat board, do the following:
- Try to find an answer by searching the archives of the forum you plan to post to.
- Try to find an answer by searching the Web.
- Try to find an answer by reading the manual.
- Try to find an answer by reading a FAQ.
- Try to find an answer by inspection or experimentation.
- Try to find an answer by asking a skilled friend.
- If you're a programmer, try to find an answer by reading the source code.
When you ask your question, display the fact that you have done these things first; this will help establish that you're not being a lazy sponge and wasting people's time. Better yet, display what you have learned from doing these things. We like answering questions for people who have demonstrated they can learn from the answers.
Use tactics like doing a Google search on the text of whatever error message you get (searching Google groups as well as Web pages). This might well take you straight to fix documentation or a mailing list thread answering your question. Even if it doesn't, saying “I googled on the following phrase but didn't get anything that looked promising” is a good thing to do in e-mail or news postings requesting help, if only because it records what searches won't help. It will also help to direct other people with similar problems to your thread by linking the search terms to what will hopefully be your problem and resolution thread.
Take your time. Do not expect to be able to solve a complicated problem with a few seconds of Googling. Read and understand the FAQs, sit back, relax and give the problem some thought before approaching experts. Trust us, they will be able to tell from your questions how much reading and thinking you did, and will be more willing to help if you come prepared. Don't instantly fire your whole arsenal of questions just because your first search turned up no answers (or too many).
Prepare your question. Think it through. Hasty-sounding questions get hasty answers, or none at all. The more you do to demonstrate that having put thought and effort into solving your problem before seeking help, the more likely you are to actually get help.
Beware of asking the wrong question. If you ask one that is based on faulty assumptions, J. Random Hacker is quite likely to reply with a uselessly literal answer while thinking “Stupid question...”, and hoping the experience of getting what you asked for rather than what you needed will teach you a lesson.
Never assume you are entitled to an answer. You are not; you aren't, after all, paying for the service. You will earn an answer, if you earn it, by asking a substantial, interesting, and thought-provoking question — one that implicitly contributes to the experience of the community rather than merely passively demanding knowledge from others.
On the other hand, making it clear that you are able and willing to help in the process of developing the solution is a very good start. “Would someone provide a pointer?”, “What is my example missing?”, and “What site should I have checked?” are more likely to get answered than “Please post the exact procedure I should use.” because you're making it clear that you're truly willing to complete the process if someone can just point you in the right direction.
also
[1] http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlHow To Interpret Answers RTFM and STFW: How To Tell You've Seriously Screwed Up
There is an ancient and hallowed tradition: if you get a reply that reads “RTFM”, the person who sent it thinks you should have Read The F***ing Manual. He or she is almost certainly right. Go read it.
RTFM has a younger relative. If you get a reply that reads “STFW”, the person who sent it thinks you should have Searched The F***ing Web. He or she is almost certainly right. Go search it. (The milder version of this is when you are told “Google is your friend!”)
In Web forums, you may also be told to search the forum archives. In fact, someone may even be so kind as to provide a pointer to the previous thread where this problem was solved. But do not rely on this consideration; do your archive-searching before asking.
Often, the person telling you to do a search has the manual or the web page with the information you need open, and is looking at it as he or she types. These replies mean that he thinks (a) the information you need is easy to find, and (b) you will learn more if you seek out the information than if you have it spoon-fed to you.
You shouldn't be offended by this; by hacker standards, your respondent is showing you a rough kind of respect simply by not ignoring you. You should instead be thankful for this grandmotherly kindness.
If you don't understand...
If you don't understand the answer, do not immediately bounce back a demand for clarification. Use the same tools that you used to try and answer your original question (manuals, FAQs, the Web, skilled friends) to understand the answer. Then, if you still need to ask for clarification, exhibit what you have learned.
For example, suppose I tell you: “It sounds like you've got a stuck zentry; you'll need to clear it.” Then: here's a bad followup question: “What's a zentry?” Here's a good followup question: “OK, I read the man page and zentries are only mentioned under the -z and -p switches. Neither of them says anything about clearing zentries. Is it one of these or am I missing something here?”
As someone new to Stack Overflow, I have to agree, to a point. I've noticed a certain SlashDot [1]tishness around here, though it's pretty limited so it is not that large an issue.
I think the environment will take care of itself over time. Those who don't need, want or deserve to be here will leave or be encouraged to leave.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlashdotIs there a limitation on when the deadline for posting on a question is considered beating a dead horse? ;)
I have little reputation, am a novice programmer, but I'm not scared to be voted down even if I answer honestly thinking I understood the question. Nothing will show me the progress I've made throughout the years like documenting my failures.
While being downright mean to someone is not the solution, I would assume people don't really need to be pampered...just my opinion as someone from the 'trophy kid' generation, you shouldn't always be protected or even rewarded when you make a mistake.
I love this place, even if I still have a lot to learn.
Cheers!
The good things we do in this life reflect in the next. We should all help each other. No question is too small, and no question is too large.
Long live Stack Overflow, and I hope its good ethics rub off on the old school elitists. Let's all work together to make Stack Overflow what it deservers to be.
I see a lot of discussion about "noobs" and such, but aren't we all technically new to the site. It's not that old yet (for example, if this site was slashdot instead, we'd all have really low UIDs).
I mean, the only difference between people joining now and people who "have been here since the beginning" is something like two months (if that). And most of that time was spent in private beta. I think the question itself promotes hostility to those who didn't join the private beta as it starts to create cliques of users in the community.
Pretty soon we'll have the group of guys who were in the private beta, the group who joined during open beta, the people who joined the first month, the people who know Joel Spolsky [1] and Jeff Atwood [2] personally, and it will be a mess of down votes and bickering in the answers and comments with moderator powers being thrown about willy-nilly.
Please, let's just ask questions, give answers, vote on the best of each and try and ignore who said what and concentrate on what was said.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_SpolskyInterestingly (to me, anyway), I think that moderation in Stack Exchange has just hit a new level in "social experiment". In a way, you might even say that this is a sign of maturity for SO (but still a problem).
Bureaucracy.
First
I'm going to talk about moderators here, but I'm not taking a shot at anyone. Really. I think that this is more of an interesting social effect than anyone being bad. So before I write the next bit, I want to thank all of the moderators for donating so much time and working so hard to make SO a great site. I mean that, and there is no sarcasm or disparagement intended whatsoever).
Now: Think about this: We have a number of rules and guidelines for using the site, and now we have a lot of moderators. As they work to optimize their job of moderating, they apply group-think based upon supporting the rules. They are doing what humans do -- optimizing their actions to complete their goal. In this case, moderating. BUT, does that necessarily mean that the work is doing the best thing for Stack Overflow (just my opinion, but nowadays, I think twice before posting and sometimes go elsewhere, because I don't want my question getting closed -- I just don't want the extra "intellectual tax" of dealing with cleaning up or thinking about a closed question, when what I'm really looking for is an answer.
Now that I've said all that, where else so you see this sort of group think effect? government bureaucracy! In way, it's really interesting, because in order to have that, doesn't the object of the bureaucracy have to be something that everyone involved feels is worth worrying about? So, in a way, cool! (that said, I'd like for it to be easier to post questions :)
We probably need to distinguish between two types of "new users":
They are usually correlated, but we need to think about them separately. Personally, I prefer new user questions to questions so specific that they can be answered with a single line. But I understand that there are others different than me (and I do reply with one-liners from time to time).
My answer to the present question is to:
I'll add an example of what happened today. Today I've seen two quite "easy" questions. They are so easy that they could be funny.
32 bit unsigned JavaScript bitwise operation is one short [1]
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7388752/and-precendence-how-does-it-work-closed
Now... Everyone that has a little of knowledge of IT should be able to answer both of them without problems.
The first one was upvoted 8 times (at the time I'm writing).
The second one was downvoted 24 times and closed by a moderator for "closed as not a real question". At this time it's the fourth most downvoted question (the wood spoon). I'll add that the question wasn't badly formatted (there isn't any revision on it and its formatting is quite good) and the English is good.
I hope this isn't "n00b friendliness" :-)
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7393546/32-bit-unsigned-javascript-bitwise-operation-is-1-short/7393573#7393573The point to be noted is that, downvoting isn't the only trick to teach the new user, how to not post syntactically ill questions.
The experienced user here are much more aware of all the guidelines and regulations of this community. But the new user is not.
Whenever a new user logs in, they don't bother to read the FAQs of community. Not even someone else would bother to do so, if they are using the site for the first time.
I don't think there is anyone who reads the FAQs of each and every site they open. Nobody thinks it as useful.
The new user should be made aware of the point that Stack Exchange sites works on some guidelines that should be followed strictly to wrap your posts into relevant words.
There are better ways of doing so. Comment with relevant links are powerful enough to direct the new user to the FAQs page instead of a heavy volume of down votes. Two or three downvotes are sufficiently enough to let the user know about how this site works.
Getting a large volume of downvotes in the initial stages are worth embarrassing, as I got in first post of mine [1].
[1] http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/146251/195231