This rant about a question doesn't belong here at all.

@KarolyHorvath You'd be the one drawing the relationship, with a comment I find to be unconstructive treatment of a fully answerable question...combined with joining in on the close vote. "You have the X Y problem, closevote" is not an answer to that question, and I challenge the idea that this meme has merit and should grow and be thrown at 1 rep users while you drop kick them out the door.

Basically you're assuming people closevoted because it was an X Y problem. They probably weren't. At least I know I weren't.. and BTW I find your whole poblem purely academic, as the user hasn't responded to a single question. You cannot teach without a feedback loop.

@KarolyHorvath You cannot teach when you pound brand new users who have perfectly fine questions with all negative comments, downvotes, and close their questions in less than an hour. Because it's a rotten experience and why would they come back? It reminds me of the joke about the gorilla at the bar who orders a banana shake and hands him a $100 bill, and the bartender thinks "what does a gorilla know about money" and gives him $1 change. Gorilla drinks, and eventually the bartender says "don't see many gorillas in here..." and gorilla says "at $99 for a banana shake, I'm not surprised."

I've never had problems with users who show the will to listen and learn. For the rest, I don't really care. Hey, it's a competitive market, if they find a better place, they should leave. Or stay, and get used to it. I also have downvoted questions and received stupid comments, it's not the end of the world..... And I would kindly like to remind you again, that this is all ridiculously off-topic here.

@KarolyHorvath Spelling "find" wrong when asking if one can achieve adjacency without using it is not listening? (From a new user who doesn't necessarily even realize if they can edit their comments). If you point me to where this discussion is on topic, I'll relocate. But I put it here to get it off the question, and I'm up to 4 reopen votes so good. But yes--it's a broader question; with lots of meta posts about elitism--and I just wish w/your rep score and knowledge you (and others) were more in line with my answer. You're shooting first, asking questions later, and citing tautologies.

Looks like you have an XY problem. And I haven't written this for the sake of a recursive pun.

@KarolyHorvath You're not doing it for much sake without defining X and Y. (I could riff where Y is talking to you and reverse-engineer X from that.) The question is reopened, yet given that won't change how you see this exchange, I'll finish with a "Moment of Zen" (as per The Daily Show). Here's a small scrap from when I was learning to program: greatest games. I want all of us to think about the opportunities, and the costs, of how our small fake Internet points may be applied to the experience of future programmers.

If you ask me to tell you X and Y, you have no understanding of the concept of XY problem. Your post is Y, and X is, well, how should I know? It's only you who can know it. (I thought you are trying to solve the wrong problem or a conceptually wrong level. that's all) TBH I'm not even sure what your Y is... can you summarize it in one sentence?

@KarolyHorvath I meant your comment makes no sense. Were it a joke you'd have to explain what X and Y were and make me the butt of the joke somehow. If it's serious, then I invite you to find 5 different people who do (claim to) understand the XY problem and see if you get any consistency in terms of answers for the interpretation for what X and Y would be (as pertinent to your comment about me having it). I was saying I could make something up to be funny myself, but did not. Anyway, please don't link new users to this page and closevote them, it's unconstructive.

though i'm not a native speaker, I rarely have problems understanding others. Which makes me wonder, why don't I understand half of what your write... my hint: If you want to get understood (and who wouldn't want to?), you should think about how you express your thoughts.

@KarolyHorvath We're reasonable people, I think.

The issue is just that I feel a new user had a bad, quick, rapid-fire harassment and their question got closed as "unclear" when I don't really see anything unclear about it.

I singled you out in particular because, I didn't think that a raw URL link to that "X Y problem" post constituted a very useful piece of feedback. I wrote my answer which was what I thought was useful. Proceeded to notice something in the process... that using floating point values as keys in maps can be bad. It was only pointed out after the reopening.

I'm sorry if you had trouble understanding the original question. I'm sorry if you have trouble understanding me. However, I haven't said all that much... other than:

1. "hey, reopen this question" (done)... and

2. "I don't think this X Y link is a productive one to be sending as the feedback someone gets prior to being told their question doesn't belong on StackOverflow."

On the StackOverflow political spectrum, I'm on the anti-elitist side of things. I think one of the big benefits it has is teaching people how to ask good questions. I really do like the exchanges where you see someone post a big behemoth of code, and you see there is a problem there... but they go back and edit it down from having 100 push buttons to just the 2 with the problem. Etc.

Basically, the sscce stuff. I think that's a good link, that perhaps doesn't need much exposition. But even still, it's nice to say a word or two like "Hey, welcome to StackOverflow! It seems like your problem statement includes code that is not related to the question. If you deleted (such and such) then would you still have the problem? If so, why's it in the question? If not, maybe you found your problem. :-) Check out sscce.org..."

That XY problem page is bad. The SSCCE page is bad as hell as well (at least compared to the ideal that I have in my head). But trying to explain these concepts in short SO comments is even worse. So I use the links. Let's hope someone fixes these canonical entry points in the future.

There is a new canon for it, somewhere, I just don't remember it offhand

Some kind of http://stackoverflow.com/something/something/sscce page.

I saw it a couple days ago

it's linked on the FAQ page. and it's shite.

ok, I see what your problem was.

Oh well, what can I see, SO is not really user-friendly. the community, the interface, the lack of automatic feedback to the user...

Something I've been a bit irritated with is that it used to seem to get better on a daily basis; some new thing would get fixed with a technical solution of some kind or another.

I just try to accept its wart and all

And it seems that in the urge to expand into having more StackExchanges and spread in "width" that the "depth" hasn't kept pace.

Because (in my mind) if you want to do something better, you conceptually have to handle the whole Q-A interaction in a different way. a way that doesn't fit the SO format. So I mostly ignore this, and live with SO, because I'm.. well, lazy? :)

And some of the discussions in the sidebar are very strange, like people asking hypothetical questions about fictional characters or systems. "On the Enterprise in the Star Trek reboot, why were the switches on the navigation console arranged in a grid in the upper right hand corner, when the actor who played Sulu is left handed." Or somesuch.

I posted an answer that because hollywood studios doesn't give a crap.

Which is, in my mind, the only correct answer. I guess I don't have to tell what their reaction was.

add the missing 's and is.

I saw something on the parenting StackExchange saying their daughter was getting older, but still believed in Santa Claus. And wondered if there was an age when you should tell them there's no Santa Claus, if so what is it?

And I chimed in with "So your question is 'at what age should I stop lying to my children?'"

There's worse, they have a buddhist (beta?) site. Lower user activity combined with the fastest gun in the west sindrome. Wretched answers....

And was promptly sent to the FAQ where they have precedent set; that challenging the premise of a parenting process is off limits. Essentially.

:) lovely misconstruction

Anyway, it's kind of chaos. But I still think one should realize that it's--for now--an important game in town.

At least StackOverflow/ServerFault/SuperUser are important.

Well, the popular questions are important.

Not quite sure about the rest. Those are for the lazy, dummy, ignorant...

And there are people who deserve an unfriendly welcome, maybe. Lack of effort. But in the "think of the young programmers trying to learn" mindset, I don't think there needs to be a beat-down like the one this question got. It was premature.

I don't feel that way.

it's expected on SO to receive comments and answers within seconds/minutes.

Well, the comments are okay, the downvotes and closing were pretty fast and too much. I sometimes get stuck on things and post and go to bed. If I get up and have a bunch of downvotes and it's closed... that's going to affect my mood.

so if I don't see any interaction, I have no reservations

well, my point is: you shouldn't do that.

You can make a meta post about this topic and see what people think.

It's time-shifted. There is--for instance--a 2-day wait on placing bounties.

ehm... recently I read a lot of meta and... I'm not sure I want to know what people think

to take this example:

it's a FACT that question only get early attention, then a quick fade phase, and after that, there isn't much activity

CONSEQUENTLY, it's a bad idea to post when you cannot read the immediate feedback.

Well, if you think this is something that is of critical importance, then there should be mechanisms and timers in the system...and a warning about it.

A big fat warning before posting....

About this, and a lot more.

But as I said, to me, the SO model is conceptually wrong.

It's great to find old answered questions with google. That part is pitch perfect.

Well, it's a big space for designing services if you have better ideas.

But the immedate interaction is shit.

There's a big space for that. AirPair, etc.

I have way too many ideas. And a very limitied amount of time.

:)

that's what I meant by "lazy"

I don't think one should close a question because they weren't glued to their monitors after posting (moreso than because the question is unclear)...and marking it unclear due to the fact that they weren't there to satisfy your curiosity about the question quickly enough.

I think that's not what "unclear what you're asking" means.

Should there be a close reason which is "closed due to inactivity of the questioner"? That seems like a decent idea.

95% of the time... nothing.

so now I simply push the button.

detest me :)

1:00p.m. "I have a problem, here is code [...]"
1:02p.m. "Why would you want to do that?  There is a better library function."
1:03p.m. -1 vote
1:03p.m. "Here's a link to something to read up on: [...]"
1:06p.m. -1 vote
1:20p.m. "Your code has too many characters in it.  sscce.org";
1:45p.m. Closed as unclear what you're asking by 5 strange-sounding words, that if you follow the links have tens of thousands of points, and you have 1.

Well, I have a lot of things I'm busy detesting. I can't have any more on my plate, so you're mostly safe.

But my point is that, a reasonable person who gets the above kind of event sequence are going to say "okay, this service... is nuts."

Bear in mind they've already been hit with not very well explained mysterious triggers like "How do you get the X of the Y in system Z" causing a "Your question is subjective and likely to be closed." Maybe they realized it came from you and will pare it down to figure out that the word "you" causes that. Maybe they'll delete the title and try something else.

Perhaps they tried to put links in and it says "your reputation is too low to paste a link". They've tried to comment and it says "you can't comment yet". Etc. etc.

I think the system is unfriendly enough without exacerbating the problem, and people should think of it more as "help me show you the ropes" vs. "GET OUT YOU SPAM POSTING FOOL!" in cases where they're not demonstrably doing anything bad.

Think of the childrens.

Because the parenting StackExchange isn't.

What I'm saying, this whole thing is encoded in the system. It's a byproduct of how users interact with it.

And it's nearly impossible to fix this by educating people about how the system should be used.

Well, if the war is already lost, and you think no education is possible, then that's a pessimistic view which doesn't bode well much for the future.

I didn't say anything like that.

Anybody who listens and gets used to how the site works can learn from this site till the end of his life....

And I was talking about SO all the time.

SO is not the future of humanity. At least I hope so...

Well...

And, as I said, SO as a knowledge repository for the google search engine works amazingly well.

Well, if we're speaking about painting pictures of the future and searchability, what do you think of my answer?

the question is unclear to me, consequently, I find it a bit dangerous to answer it.

I still ask what is unclear.

a big percentage of these ends up being an XY. a) the user is doing micro-optimisation b) the user does sane optimization, but trying to do it on the wrong level. a different data structure would solve the problem c) etcetera

They have a monotonically increasing key. It's clearly not the case that the values are monotonically increasing. They feel there is an ordering to the map elements. I do not think it is reasonable to assume they mean anything besides order by key with the data given.

I think you misread it.

I think they are someone who thinks using the subscript notation is convenient and understandable. Who knows, maybe they come from JavaScript or wherever and haven't used iterators before. So they're wondering if there's a shortcut to not use find to solve their problem.

I'm, for example, when asking such questions are aware that people can feel that I'm perhaps doing something stupid, so I add a disclaimer to tell why I'm doing what I'm doing.

man, that's your interpretation.

Often I actually don't like explaining what I'm doing -- because I actually know a fairly large amount. If I'm bothering to ask a question, I don't want someone to ask "who wants to know?" and descend into a tangent. The more precise my question, the less likely I want to have to address why I'm asking it.

@KarolyHorvath The reluctance to using find seems rather obviously a case of being "afraid" of iterators and thinking subscript notation is more accessible. I don't think that's an unreasonable feeling. I wrote a bit the other day about my own annoyance with thinking the STL was a bunch of gibberish when I first saw it. And it kind of is.

But a lot of things are better now. for (auto x : collection) helps a lot.

I will mention that every tag, and its followers, has sort of a different "subculture". The C++ subculture has a lot more "aaaarrrgh shut up" while the C subculture is more likely to answer questions that show confusion about early concepts.

You see, that's where your interpretation stems from.

Well, let us say for the sake of argument that my interpretation is correct.

So now, we have a person we know nothing about, who is stepping out and having to go through the various steps to make a new StackOverflow account, who has this idea.

And I'm not saying it's wrong. But in my experience, OPs usually don't know what the heck are they doing, and then come up with these strange questions. And I'm not going to do a damn thing before they clarify the issue.

Stop this.

He never responded.

I don't give a fuck.

Well I'd rather you just let things like that be.

about any hypothetical what-if.

There are enough things out there that are genuinely really bad.

This time-response thing isn't acknowledging the intimidation factor of the system.

That's what my gorilla-banana-shake joke was about.

If you intimidate people and have an invisible constraint, like you must clarify in less than an hour or we close you, then certain people will say "sorry I asked" and walk out. Even (and perhaps especially) professionals.

Why don't you deal with real issues? Why do you waste time on a user who didn't even take the effort to check the answers? At least once...

I ran a C++ group with 400+ members. Very few had StackOverflow accounts. The few that did spoke of bad first experiences and never came back.

It's a real issue.

They said exactly that "yeah, I use it on the search engine. I asked a question. Got pounced on. Said 'sorry I asked'... no thank you"

It's not their cup of tea.

The site ergonomics are overall far above average, and I think it benefits with more people who participate and learn.

I could point out countless questions that I guess I don't mind there being a spam filter response to. But we've tripped across several beliefs that I think represent a difference in opinion about moderation here; yours is especially about a hidden time-sensitivity, as well as an unwillingness to realize that if you give people a bad experience their response rate will drop to 0 rapidly.

It doesn't concern you. I'm concerned that it doesn't.

I suppose I can't do much besides ask you to compose a meta post about this rule of how quickly people have to respond to requests for clarification. Which you said no to, because meta feedback is not useful.

So if anyone does it, that will have to be me.

The other thing I asked is that you provide more helpful comments than a link-only comment to the X Y thing. Which along with the "your question was closed as unclear" and other general gibberish is enough to make reasonable people leave...unless they see a great incentive to persist in the face of adversity (?)

So let's leave it there. I've said what I have to say, you have too. It's on the record.

"But we" - care to tell who you are?

your zealous interest was clear from the beginning

"You and I have tripped across several beliefs, that I think..."

Ok, if you don't want to, you don't have to

Sorry if that isn't clear. Given that you and I are the only people talking, in English, the assumption is "we" would mean you and I.

As in "I think we must disagree."

"an unwillingness to realize that if you give people a bad experience their response rate will drop to 0 rapidly" - I realize that.

But if your broader question is "who are you?" I have like, websites and stuff. Sent you a blog link.

Photo if you really want one :) meetup.com/The-Austin-C-C-Meetup-Group/members/9077571

....I just don't care if a single bad experience deters somebody.

I suggest not working in product design or marketing, then.

:D

"If at first you don't succeed..."

"...skydiving is not your sport."

was not your sport.

"I read this thing about a guy who is a grand champion skydiver. I wasn't aware there were levels of achievement in skydiving."

"At most, there would be like... two. Grand champion and... stuff on a rock."

(Norm MacDonald joke)

Well do meditate on that statement "I just don't care if a single bad experience deters somebody." That's a rough stance.

I think, there's enough roughness in the system that if one really enters into it as a person who can think/feel/write then helping people get to know the ropes can be a more satisfying experience than helping scare them away.

As always, there are exceptions. I have to admit, with rape in context, that stance is a bit harsh.

After all, we are talking about just some comments on a "stupid website".

Well taking that is a harsh standpoint as well.

I do see it through the lens of thinking that this is a truly large paradigm shift in how quickly you can get information and work in software, a subject I care about... and it's highly ranked in Google, which is another "stupid website" in some point of view... so there's a focus here. For now.

An SO post is still miles away from the instant feedback loop of type+compile+debug.

But when compilers throw errors at me and reject things I'm telling them, I don't take it personally.

Well, sometimes I do.

You should thank them. Each time.

All right. I actually do have work to do, believe it or not.

So let's put this on hold until such time as I write some meta post that a bunch of people say antagonizing things about regarding the time window for feedback.

you gotta love compiler errors when you are into the C++ template territory or some haskell madness

good luck

@KarolyHorvath blog.hostilefork.com/eight-year-olds-reading-code

Just learning Haskell, actually

Put it off for a pretty long time, even though people said "oh, you must"

yeah, writing functional code is a so fundamentally different process

such a

Feel free to add whatever you like, I've deleted the X Y post and we can continue this to be the locus of our conversation.

Because I think the two parts I quote are the core of our disagreement.