> 1. It was hard to ask any question. Sometimes it felt if a few characters match it will be closed off as dupe. Besides no thought was given to the fact that same question might change entirely from pov of the answers for a platform or SDK across, say, a decade (?).

> ...

> 3. But bigger takeway was that due to relative uselessnes (if not downright hostility) of SO I started just breaking down the problem and solving on my own, talk to colleagues, or look for solutions for broken down problems and then I think I used to come across SO in months and that too most of the time when a colleague will refer to something.

Yeah, SO's culture meant that it was always my absolute last resort to ask a question there. And whenever I did I had to be super-defensive from the get go. It was either people trying their hardest to close it, or "redefine" a hard question into an easier one they could answer (e.g. ignore the constraints that were key to my question).

I understand a lot of that came from their desire to create a curated list of questions, but in retrospect they took the wrong approach. They should have let people ask and answer questions freely, even dups. Instead of hunting for dups to close, they should have had their moderators link them together and author the "canonical question" from them.

My biggest issue with SO was that all the answers were outdated. In the beginning, if you found an answer on SO it'd be still relevant because SO was relatively new. But then as it got older, so did the answers to questions.

The ridiculously strict "no duplicates" policy guaranteed that the old, increasingly outdated answers would remain the only answers forever. In retrospect, I believe a site like SO wants to encourage some rate of duplicates, to ensure that answers remain fresh.

Just yesterday I looked something up on SO and the answer was 14 years old. Would've been a pretty relevant answer back when I first started using SO, but not now.

They really killed themselves through strict moderation. It's incredibly sad, it was a good resource while it lasted.

To me, the way the site was organized was absurd. It was difficult to answer questions.

The one time I tried, I couldn't answer directly because I had no reputation, and I couldn't comment either, but I could edit the question (!) which someone else had already done, answering the question in the question. It was an incomplete answer, so I added another edit with a complete answer. Then the mod who approved my edit also added a newline to it, so it was them and not me who was credited (unless you went to the 'history' page).

I gave up after that.

> 1. It was hard to ask any question.

Totally. There were so many safeguards in place, for a newcomer it is quite hard to contribute.

They also never understood a core principle of such platforms. The noise is not noise but what carries such platforms. They even had it quantified, some of their most upvoted questions are off topic because they are opinion based. Bad and good questions (and answers) come hand in hand.

Well, they were the backbone of professional IT/SWE, so of course they did a lot of things right obviously.

I always found that the SO search was frustratingly bad and users NEED to use search to find the authoritative question for your needs.

And even if I find the right existing question, the accepted answer might not be the one I need. Sometimes the question asked accepts the wrong question. Sometimes the current right answer didn't exist at the time of the answer acceptance.

SO was a good first approximation of a good Q&A site. It didn't evolve with the times.

I think they tried too hard to structure things and keep everything clean, which becomes difficult or even outright deleterious when the numbers are large.

They should have accepted a certain level of mess instead of being so strict. After all, even good popular answers become outdated sooner or later.

The most hilarious moment for me was when my question that was 5y old was closed as a duplicate of one that was couple of months old. I provided an answer on how to work around the issue; the new question didn't have an answer, but it had more points. From what I read the original issue was still there. At that point I was rarely visiting the website either way, but the absurdity of the situation was staggering.

> It was hard to ask any question. Sometimes it felt if a few characters match it will be closed off as dupe. Besides no thought was given to the fact that same question might change entirely from pov of the answers for a platform or SDK across, say, a decade (?).

I used to end the questions with "It's not a duplicate of AAA because BBB is different. It's also not a duplicate of CCC because DDD". It DID force you to check for already answered questions, but the automated hints while you typed was often good enough to spot duplicates.

In the end, imagine wasting half an hour to post a four-lines issue... No thanks.

I hated asking Qs in SO, it felt terribly snobby. However, I used it a lot to search for answers. The alternatives were crap.

First, there was some DevX? or similar site (either Indian or used by Indians a lot), the quality was pretty bad. At some point medium had good SnR , but then it got enshittified. Then a bunch of SEO crap sites came in (geeks4geeks and whatnot) and it was the end of it. Only S.O maintained certain quality, for existing info. Asking was still pretty terrible.

The "web" [http] is currently in a deplorable state, ads are horrible and rampant, the majority of content is pure SEO crap [now AI generated]. So LLMs are a breath of air to get answers.

Ive said it before but, the internet is really dead, for a lot of different reasons [death internet theory and public services automated hacking is the nail in the coffin].

As someone who spent some time participating in the filtering of SO's questions, considering the quality of some of the new question, I understand why the volunteer moderators pushed SO/SE for those question quality control tools and a push for users to use them. But sadly, unlike the upvote/downvote mechanism, the incentives to use them resulted in hasty decisions (close as dupe), which had an adverse effect on the site's reputation.

+1 to the outright hostility.

Good riddance.

> It was hard to ask any question. Sometimes it felt if a few characters match it will be closed off as dupe.

I feel this is the critical bit. People are quick to dismiss this problem as a moderation problem, but I don't agree. I believe it was a query problem, and the absolute lack of support for tying both questions and answers to specific software versions, or range of software versions. So you'd see answers from ages ago marked as the right answer to a question, even though it was using some deprecated version.

Questions on how to address the same issue when new versions were out where closed as duplicates because literally the question was asked before and answered as well. But the answer nowadays would not be applicable.

Then to sidestep this problem you see the phenomenon where ancient questions end up having multiple answers, with newer answers even out voting the accepted answer. And even those would be deprecated as well.

So SO was designed as a system where a single question can only possibly have a single accepted answer. Ever. And anyone asking similar questions would by design be routed to he question that was asked and answered. But the system was designed over the concept of static information and static notion of truth. Which the world definitely doesn't follow.

I agree that SO became very hostile at some point. But I also moderated a bit around 2014-2019 and the vast majority of questions in my field were very low effort. People would just dump their code with no context and ask why it doesn't work.

So, the place was a shit hole.

Well, 2) is often a honey pot trap since some projects have no documentation, or only so little documentation that spending time trying to figure out a project is a waste of time. There is a reason why SO got important in the first place. Horrible documentation was one reason.

> I also realised reading the documentation (that is if available) and looking though github and people's blogs helped better.

For the Javascript ecosystem in particular... it also massively helped that projects finally started to work on their documentation. The churn rate was insane and documentation or working examples took an afterthought for far too long, that is what drove so many people to SO in the first place.