Timeline for answer to No, I do not believe this is the end by Kevin Krumwiede
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| yesterday | comment | added | Kevin Krumwiede | @Lundin The zealous moderators often cite Spolsky as the reason the site operates how it does, and why the users have no "moral right" to question it. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | Anyway I think you are correct in that one of the major problems with the site was always zealous moderation, but how you came to the conclusion that Spolsky was somehow the mastermind behind that, I have no idea. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | If anything, I think the era around 2014 marked a switch from quality to quantity. That is: go from programmer helping programmer towards programmer helping student. And that's later one of the main reasons for the major loss of users - the students are gone, since GenAI can answer day 1 beginner level questions without tripping. (As can books, it turns out.) Before 2014 we did have "user must demonstrate a minimum of knowledge about the topic". | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Kevin Krumwiede | @Lundin Specifically, that it was ever remotely realistic to only allow rigidly defined "quality" Q&A and expect enough people to be interested in the project to create the desired library of quality content. Such a library was created, but this happened because the standards for Q&A were lower. As noted in other answers, the library that was created before the site peaked is still valuable but rapidly getting dated. As for the implementation of the experiments, suffice it to say that my theory is extremely politically incorrect. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | As for all the new horrible experiments, I don't think it is enough to just cancel them all. That's a good start, but someone ought to take responsibility for how very poorly every single experiment was implemented. We can't improve anything on the site unless someone gets to the bottom with how every single idea launched, good or bad, turns into a fiasco during the implementation. There's a very clear pattern of this happening over and over in the last couple of years, starting somewhere around Discussions and the new editor. There's also a pattern of silently abandoning all experiments. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | Lundin | What "impractical ideals" more specifically? Spolsky seemed overall AFK. | |
| yesterday | history | answered | Kevin Krumwiede | CC BY-SA 4.0 |