While OP makes some valid points (i.e. community receptivity), this is something that caught my attention:
> StackOverflow is filled to the brim with people giving fishes.
Perhaps. But those get only a few points. Joel Spolsky wrote about not only answering a specific domain question, but rather writing a comprehensive answer about some topic in a away that it becomes the default answer everyone reverts to when the question comes up again (http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/reputation-not-rep/)
Not saying my answer is awesome, but I just tried to be comprehensive on a very recurring SQL topic and the community responded very positively to it.
I get it, SO feels like a game. But I use it to hone my skills and learn new things. When I want to learn, I don't ask on SO: I stick to a tag and keep trying to answer something on it. Learned a lot that way.
I only answer questions that aren't googlable. Edge cases in hedge libraries basically. I give comprehensive and detailed answers that reflect the hours of research I had to do. They get upvoted a few points every now and then.
I once answered a Java frameworks question with an opinion. It has gathered nearly a thousand points over the last few years.
The game is broken. Bad answers to stupid questions get all of the points and I raise an eyebrow every time a CV lands on my desk enumerating the candidates SO points.
But it's still a well optimised site that beat experts exchange, so it doesn't matter too much.
I tried that. Guess what happened:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/7745635/570191
Not saying my answer is awesome, but I just tried to be comprehensive on a very recurring SQL topic and the community responded very positively to it.
I get it, SO feels like a game. But I use it to hone my skills and learn new things. When I want to learn, I don't ask on SO: I stick to a tag and keep trying to answer something on it. Learned a lot that way.
Just my 2c.
reply