Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

SO is quite interesting. But new questions are sometimes really boring and repetetive. Being too lazy to come up with clever ideas to search, I'd like to see a "feeding area" here.

Since there is a lot of expert experience and empirical knowledge around, it might be cool if there was more publishing oppurtunity on SO. I'd like to read answers to questions that haven't been asked yet. People should be able to write more elaborate about their points of interests, without stuffing this into an answer for yet another generic one-liner question.

Loads of similar discussions came up here before:
Posting and answering questions you have already found the answer to
Yes of course, it's possible to ask a question and answer it yourself. But as documented there, this violates the basic approach of SO and is hence very unwelcome by other users. That's why I thought it might be nice if there was a sanctioned way to "blog" about interesting code / programming methodologies / experiences in deep, without actually camouflaging an article as puzzle question.


Less hypothetical: There is for example a little security method I use, which nobody else seems to have pondered. If I wanted to present that here, it wouldn't be a real question but mostly asking for feedback and discussion. It's too lenghty to make a pseudo question out of it. And above all, it feels wrong to game the established Q&A system.

So would it be possible to get a separated out category for selfposts here? Usability-wise it's silly to have it on an external domain (stackexchange/area51 thingy), but also to mix it up with regular real questions. It should be easily accessible (e.g. as sorting/filter category besides newest, featured, hot, ...) but share the regular tags. If per default those posts resided in the community wiki, it might e.g. breath some life and real hyperlinky structure into that.
A convention like title="[blog/article] my topic" or a specific tag would also suffice, if such non-questionish articles would be filtered out on the frontpage somehow; still be easily browsable without the search function.

share|improve this question
Stack Exchange is a great platform for Q&A. It doesn't work good for discussion. – Gnoupi Jun 20 '10 at 15:34
Why not just start your own blog and publicise it in your profile. – ChrisF Jun 20 '10 at 15:37
@ChrisF: That example was to self-centric. I'd actually want to read other peoples unasked-for programming concepts. Here, not on blogs. The questions is if that adds anything new or just more repetition. – mario Jun 20 '10 at 16:18
possible duplicate of Moving a personal technical blog to stackoverflow / serverfault – John Rudy Jun 21 '10 at 14:45

Stack Overflow is not a place for blogging and discussion. Nor is it meant to be a universal resource for everything related to programming. It is meant to be a repository for questions and answers related to programming.

We don't need a "sanctioned method for blogging" in Stack Overflow - the point isn't for people to be blogging here in the first place. If you want to contribute knowledge in a fashion that can be properly expressed as a question and an answer, feel free to ask and answer your own question (but give people a chance as well, of course). But if you want to toss ideas back and forth and get some discourse, this simply is not the platform to accomplish that, nor do I think that it should be.

share|improve this answer
I get the don't need part. Please elaborate on the don't want aspect, don't get hung up on the "blog" phrase. Your answer reads a bit different to the ones in the linked discussion (but then, that happened a while ago ;) Also I believe you're not right on the discussion aspect. This is very much a bulletin board here. - My primal question is, if SO is for contributing knowledge, is it senseful to shoehorn everything into questions & disguised answers. Why do you think it would water SO down into a too generic aggregation? (Are programming guides already out of scope? What's with the wiki?) – mario Jun 20 '10 at 17:14
@mario Meta is different than the rest of the sites. It may be based on the same engine, but its purpose is different, it's meant as a feedback site exactly for back-and-forth. Meanwhile, relevant quote from the SO FAQ with emphasis added by myself: "Avoid asking questions that are subjective, argumentative, or require extended discussion. This is not a discussion board, this is a place for questions that can be answered!" I don't think that merely adding a discussion section will water down Stack Overflow by itself, but... (cont.) – Grace Note Jun 20 '10 at 17:24
...that doesn't make it any more within the scope. To handle your wiki point, the point of Community Wiki isn't to allow subjective or discussion material, it is technically to convert ownership of material from singular to community. Few people use it as such, of course, but that's not my concern. – Grace Note Jun 20 '10 at 17:31
@ccomet: Oh see, the FAQ explains. Still I cannot agree. Meta is of course way more discussion-centric, but SO anyway has them. I've seen a lot of comments turn into dicussions in itself, often even the initial canvassing comments are. But I understand what you mean. Q&A is the defining character of stackoverflow, the base methodology to categorize knowledge. Still I'd like to draw the comparisin to regular forums, because question answering is most often their primary assignment too. – mario Jun 20 '10 at 18:04
+ This has happend to everyone. You type a question, and while typing you automatically aquire your answer. So regularily people shy away and throw both out without posting. While the question is answered, and the reason for posting it gone, this is effectively lost knowledge. And IMO stackoverflow should be more encouraging posting self-answered stuff (especially with decision workflow leading to the self-answering). Forums try that, but it rarely works. It's still in scope for SO, because posting a self-answered question is implicitely still begging for better solutions and alternate impl. – mario Jun 20 '10 at 18:05
@mario you can self-answer questions, it's an accepted and encouraged practice. But it needs to be in question and answer form. – Pëkka Jun 20 '10 at 18:07
@ccomet: I got hung up on the "wiki" name. It's not a real wiki after all. It's editable, but lacks any incorporated hyperlinks or some editor to group it in lieu. Thought about it as a separate part/purpose structure or different kind of content. But it's just about ownership, and encouraging editing. But it's not edited, just modified. And it still follows the Q&A concept only. – mario Jun 20 '10 at 18:12
@Pekka: SAQ are permitted, but not encouraged. It regularily upsets people as I've seen in other Meta discussions on the topic. Hence my quest for a separate space, where you don't have to dishonestly wait 12h to post your preexistent answer. – mario Jun 20 '10 at 18:36
Post your answer and question at the same time. I do it all the time and my top voted answers are actually to self-answered questions – Casebash Jun 20 '10 at 22:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .