Return to Answer

[Not understanding the site] is just not a defensible position. Programmers is the easiest site on the entire network to understand. What is it about? Wait for it...

 

software design and development

1. I don't understand this site because I'm not a programmer.

   As it happens, I've been writing and maintaining software most of my life. But maybe my previous jobs don't count as "design and development"? I've done a lot more work on other people's code than building new systems, so it's possible I don't get the topic after all.

2. I don't understand this site because I don't understand the Stack Exchange model.

I was a beta user of Stack Overflow and have asked questions on dozens of sites with minimal closure. I'm also working as a Community Manager here. On the other hand, I've historically been soft on question closing, so maybe this is my problem.

3. I don't understand this site because it's a community more complex than the cross section of software design and development and Stack Exchange.

I feel this is the most likely explanation because I don't think #1 or #2 apply to me. I certainly don't think either #1 or #2 apply to Jeff Atwood. Therefore, I'm fairly confident that this site can be difficult to understand for reasons entirely separate from the topic.

[Not understanding the site] is just not a defensible position. Programmers is the easiest site on the entire network to understand. What is it about? Wait for it...

software design and development

1. I don't understand this site because I'm not a programmer.

   As it happens, I've been writing and maintaining software most of my life. But maybe my previous jobs don't count as "design and development"? I've done a lot more work on other people's code than building new systems, so it's possible I don't get the topic after all.

2. I don't understand this site because I don't understand the Stack Exchange model.

   I was a beta user of Stack Overflow and have asked questions on dozens of sites with minimal closure. I'm also working as a Community Manager here. On the other hand, I've historically been soft on question closing, so maybe this is my problem.

3. I don't understand this site because it's a community more complex than the cross section of software design and development and Stack Exchange.

   I feel this is the most likely explanation because I don't think #1 or #2 apply to me. I certainly don't think either #1 or #2 apply to Jeff Atwood. Therefore, I'm fairly confident that this site can be difficult to understand for reasons entirely separate from the topic.

(It's drifting too far from the topic at hand, but I don't think treating user time as a zero-sum is a reasonable estimate. People tend to spend more time on sites they enjoy. It's one of the reasons we encourage people to have fun. Why would anyone keep participating in a hobby that makes them miserable?)

(It's drifting too far from the topic at hand, but I don't think treating user time as a zero-sum is a reasonable estimate. People tend to spend more time on sites they enjoy. It's one of the reasons we encourage people to have fun. Why would anyone keep participating in a hobby that makes them miserable?)

As the review system has improved, we've significantly softened the question block system. In addition, we have added speed bumps to slow down users who have show a pattern of asking poorly-recieved questions. (Rolling rate limits are now enabled network-wide, by the way.) We used to get many false positives (meaning people were banned who probably shouldn't have been). After making those changes, we see far fewer false positives. We think that the reason for this is that the system is doing a better job of amplifying other users' feedback to people who have a difficult time understanding it for whatever reason.

As the review system has improved, we've significantly softened the question block system. In addition, we have added speed bumps to slow down users who have show a pattern of asking poorly-recieved questions. (Rolling rate limits are now enabled network-wide, by the way.) We used to get many false positives (meaning people were banned who probably shouldn't have been). After making those changes, we see far fewer false positives. We think that the reason for this is that the system is doing a better job of amplifying other users' feedback to people who have a difficult time understanding it for whatever reason.