> I always feel the "toxicity" claimed of SO is way overblown
"overblown" == "who ya going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
At Google I interviewed a refugee from Theranos, when they were still around. (It was just lunch, so I wasn't expected to ask him anything.) Still, I mentioned the bad press, and he said the news was "exaggerated."
When people mention something again and again, it's usually not "overblown" -- it's real.
No, you can't know without knowing the ratio of good to bad. With more popularity comes more negative experiences as well. And as with everything in life those with an axe to grind keep harping on forever and everywhere, making it more visible than the silent enjoyers.
"Give up"? I'm just poking holes in your argument, not sure why I got anything to give up? Is me doing that worse than you not "giving up" somehow?
It's not irrelevant. I didn't even mention yelp so that's a straw man. You said the ratio didn't matter. I claimed it does, as looking at absolute numbers of complaints makes no sense. That's it.
Why are you just dismissing people with an other viewpoint than you as "those with an axe to grind" that "keep on harping forever and everywhere"? Your complete disregard of others experience and viewpoint is extremely in line with the elements that people dont like about SO.
"So that is your opinion, experience and thoughts? WRONG!". Add in some offhand slights, that will teach them!
Well, well. If we go to SO we see that a "matsemann" has been a member for 11 years, had 20,000+ reputation points, and is a "publicist" and a "steward".
Usually writers do "full disclosure" when their objectivity is open to question.
Especially when they have 15 comments on one post. One does suspect they have an axe to grind.
As for "knowing about it" -- when hordes of people try it once or twice and get instantly repulsed (an experience we see in the other comments here), you could certainly claim they don't "know about it." However, that doesn't disqualify them.
Otherwise, Survivor Bias only lets in the people who like it.
Wow, what damning evidence! Someone commenting about a forum is a member of said forum! What a scoop, Pulitzer incoming!
Even in my very first post in this discussion, I mentioned review queues and what I feel is wrong with SO recently. It's pretty clear to everyone with reading skills that I'm therefore an active member there. And no sane person would think my "objectivity is open to question" based on me commenting a few lines about an article. I'm not a "writer", I'm just commenting on an article. What a weird thing to demand "full disclosure" of.
(And if you knew anything about SO (which I think one should do when discussing it..), you'd know that the badges you mention is just things normal members can do. I have no extra privileges or responsibility, as you seem to imply)
Edit: the comment I'm replying to has been massively edited since I wrote this.
As for my 15 comments: it's me in the root of the discussion. I'm not all over the comments, I'm just responding to comments in the tree of comments I've started. I don't think that should be discouraged.
"overblown" == "who ya going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
At Google I interviewed a refugee from Theranos, when they were still around. (It was just lunch, so I wasn't expected to ask him anything.) Still, I mentioned the bad press, and he said the news was "exaggerated."
When people mention something again and again, it's usually not "overblown" -- it's real.
reply