How can the "What Stack Overflow Is Not" post be improved? [closed]

Question

I've had a number of comments made about https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not, mostly to the effect that the post is too "cold and prickly" to properly represent the community of nice people that frequent Stack Overflow every day.

In particular, the Community Team likes some of the explanations of the land mines that people step on all the time, but they won't link to it because of its perceived tone.

How can we make this better?

Are there other problems with the post that could be fixed/improved, and if so, how?

Answer 1

Comments linking to that post do get flagged as rude quite often (as you know). I don't think there's anything wrong with the Meta post itself, but when left as a comment some of the messages can seem a bit terse. I think it would help to soften the language in the title of each entry, since that's what people usually copy/paste as the body of their comments. So instead of

Stack Overflow is not a Recommendation Engine

we could have

Recommendation questions are off-topic on Stack Overflow

and instead of

Stack Overflow is not your personal research assistant

maybe it should be

You should show your own research when posting a question to Stack Overflow.

One that seems particularly snarky when taken by itself is

Stack Overflow is not a Mind Reader.

But the very next sentence provides a perfectly helpful replacement message.

Always provide enough information in your question so that we can answer it.

Since the first sentence of each answer seems to be just begging to be copy/pasted as a comment, I think replacing each of those bold messages with a friendlier version would help reduce the perceived rudeness of the post as a whole.

---

On a side note, I noticed that most of the answers on that post link to other Meta posts. It would probably be a good idea to go through and make sure they link to a relevant section of the FAQ where there is one, a related Meta faq, or a Stack Exchange blog post. Having an official reference to back up the assertions in those answers will lend them some credibility as real problems and not just idle complaints.

Answer 2

Thanks for asking! I gotta say that every time that post pops up, it makes me a little sad for what Stack Overflow has become. I count 33 things that SO is not which amounts to at least that many behaviors that lusers users have discovered that are to be discouraged. No doubt the list will grow.

It's also a little discongruous to have a list that includes both:

Stack Overflow is not paying people to answer your questions

which seems like a very natural assumption to make, and:

Stack Overflow is not Your Free Promotional Site™

which seems like a more obvious form of abuse.

I've never seen the question being used as "just-in-time documentation", but I can imagine being horrified by getting a link the the "people aren't getting paid" answer and seeing the rest of the menagerie that surrounds it. The subtle message is, "The site is powered by volunteers, you spammer!" Which leads me to the first suggestion:

Split it into 33+ questions with one canonical answer

This would go a long way to solving my objection (which is admittedly not that big a deal) and, I'm guessing, make the whole thing more approachable to someone who's crossed a specific line. Instead of being confronted with "bad behavior #21", you could point them to the specific misconception they have about the site.

It also will allow individual responses to have their own tone. I love the answer to:

Stack Overflow is not attacking you personally

but it takes on a darker tone when put next to:

Stack Overflow is not going to read all that

or other, more snarky, answers. When it comes to sarcasm, these's a race-to-the-bottom problem. On it's own, the first answer sounds upfront and honest. But when you start to suspect the answers ought not to be read completely straight, you feel like the victim of a verbal practical joke or something.

My second suggestion is:

Assume the best

I suppose that the vast majority of people who abuse the system need a slap on the wrist and a stern dressing-down. It's useful to have a bit of text handy for just that purpose. But I really think it works best to assume the best in others. I know it can be cathartic to throw a little bile back at a particularly hateful user, but that's not a good idea. Rise above.

The funny thing is that I'm convince the really terrible people won't even notice the tone. There's probably some psychology out there to back me up, but my intuition is that being abusive makes people ignore blowback in general. If so, a sarcastic tone only serves to frustrate the users most likely to learn form their mistakes.

Answer 3

I've noticed two issues with What Stack Overflow is Not (WSOiN).

1. The first is what vcsjones just said in a comment above, which I'll just copy because it's well stated:

   I think how it is delivered to people is also a problem. Often times I see links delivered to people in comments that contain just the post's title, like "Stack Overflow is not your personal research assistant," and that's all. It comes off very declarative.

   I would even go a step farther and say that it often comes off as brusque, unwelcoming or downright rude, depending on context.

2. The second issue is related to the first. Now that WSOiN exists, users who link to it can — consciously or not — feel like they've done their part and move on. I've seen people post one-liner links to WSOiN entries and then leave without making any attempt to fix obvious spelling errors or other issues with posts. I suspect that the same is true of voting and flagging.

   In other words, linking to WSOiN is the "I just walked five extra steps to throw away a candy wrapper instead of littering, so I've done my part to protect the environment for this year" of the SO world. It really is the least you can do.

   This is just a human nature thing; people who normally put in a certain level of effort may do much less when you give them an easier alternative that still lets them feel like they've somehow contributed. I don't even mind WSOiN too much when it's used in conjunction with other efforts, rather than instead of them.

At one point, you said that people shouldn't criticize WSOiN without justification/evidence, which I respect. I have been collecting examples as I see them; it's not a priority, so it's slow going. But now that you've asked this question, I didn't want to wait to respond.

Answer 4

I don't think the problem is with the post itself - I don't think there have been any discussions about inappropriate posts or misleading information there.

Until recently I believe that I was abusing those links unintentionally. I meant well. The point is to educate the OP about what types of questions are allowed on the site.

People I've talked to who are opposed to this behavior claim (rightfully so) that it is rather snarky to just post a link like that. If you are going to make a comment and reference something then reference it, don't just post the link. It's almost like a lmgtfy, or a whathaveyoutried.com. If you want to leave a comment nudging the OP in the right direction then put a little more effort than just pasting a link. It pretty much comes down to rewording one or more of the answers from https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/128548/what-stack-overflow-is-not to suit the OP and the question at hand.

I would love to post some examples of some helpful comments that include WSOIN links however most places where those comments are appropriate get closed and ultimately deleted as they are all examples of what we do not want on the site.

Given a question asking for recommendations on what jQuery-X plugin to use, examples of comments would be -

Bad example

• Stack Overflow is not a recommendation engine – Lix 35 secs ago

Good example

• It would be hard to decide what exactly would answer your question as all answers would be peoples opinions which can change over time as opposed to a concrete solution. Questions here need to be more specific. A question about a problem with a specific plugin would be acceptable because you could include code samples of things you've tried. – Lix 35 secs ago

Answer 5

I don't agree with the comments which say that "Stack Overflow is cold and prickly".

Having said that some of the links could sound cold and pricky. It actually depends on the user perception. I am sure that you will agree that each one of us is a unique individual capable of forming our own opinions based on what we see and what we hear. For example, let's take the case of

Stack Overflow is not like all those other sites

Stack Overflow does not work like online forums. If you came here expecting to use your existing knowledge of how online forums work, you may be disappointed.

I have been participating in forums for a long time now and I don't find the above statement cold and prickly but yes, a first time user just might find that cold and prickly.

Perhaps changing that to something like this?

Stack Overflow is just not like any other site (Removed the word THOSE)

You will be pleasantly surprised to find that Stack Overflow is very unique as compared to several other forums. Before you ask or answer your first question, we would recommend you to read the following....

Here is another example.

Western+internet+developer culture may be more flippant/familiar/sarcastic than you may be used to in your own culture.

taken from here

Like one of the users who commented on that post, SO is Global. The above comments is just sending wrong signals (even if that was not your intention)

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Changing the tone of how the message is conveyed.
2. Avoiding words which could initiate unnecessary discussions.

Answer 6

The "Stack Overflow is not a forum or discussion board" question is somewhat misleading, as Stack Overflow is part forum, as per the venerable Venn Diagram. I would instead recommend phrasing it as follows:

Stack Overflow is not your typical forum or discussion board