Over the past one and a half years, Stack Overflow has lost around 50% of its traffic. This decline is similarly reflected in site usage, with approximately a 50% decrease in the number of questions and answers, as well as the number of votes these posts receive.
The charts below show the usage represented by a moving average of 49 days.
What happened?
People isn’t considering that documentation has greatly improved over time, languages and frameworks have become more abstract, user-friendly, modern code is mostly self explanatory, good documentation has become the priority of all open source projects, well documented open source languages and frameworks have become the norm.
Less people asking programming related questions can be explained by programming being an easier and less problematic experience nowadays, that is true.
I don’t entirely agree that more and better documentation removes bugs, problems, questions, concerns, or cuts too much into a 50% drop in site usage. Having documentation is just another tool in the toolbelt, to be used alongside community forums.
Discovery process for myself and many of my coworkers has always been; Look up obscure errors, problems, etc. to get an idea of what I’m dealing with, and then off to the documentation.
They don’t remove bugs, but it is easier to solve them without having to wait for some random guy to answer on stack overflow.
I don’t know now (I haven’t asked a question in ages) but to get a good answer on stack overflow it used to take weeks sometimes
GitHub issues are usually more useful
Perhaps it’s easier to ask copilot or chatgpt. A quick but slightly inaccurate response might satisfy the user better.
ChatGPT has also found stupid typos or misplaced commas that humans can miss.
Definatly replaced the site for me I always just needed just a little nudge where I was missing something obvious or new. They should be happy now no one is taking up their “free time” a constant reason for being toxic to new users
One aspect that I’ve always been unsure about, with Stack Overflow, and even more with sibling sites like Physics Stack Exchange or Cross Validated (stats and probability), is the voting system. In the physics and stats sites, for example, not rarely I saw answers that were accepted and upvoted but actually wrong. The point is that users can end up voting for something that looks right or useful, even if it isn’t (probably less the case when it comes to programming?).
Now an obvious reply to this comment is “And how do you know they were wrong, and non-accepted ones right?”. That’s an excellent question – and that’s exactly the point.
In the end the judge about what’s correct is only you and your own logical reasoning. In my opinion this kind of sites should get rid of the voting or acceptance system, and simply list the answers, with useful comments and counter-comments under each. When it comes to questions about science and maths, truth is not determined by majority votes or by authorities, but by sound logic and experiment. That’s the very basis from which science started. As Galileo put it:
But in the natural sciences, whose conclusions are true and necessary and have nothing to do with human will, one must take care not to place oneself in the defense of error; for here a thousand Demostheneses and a thousand Aristotles would be left in the lurch by every mediocre wit who happened to hit upon the truth for himself.
For example, at some point in history there was probably only one human being on earth who thought “the notion of simultaneity is circular”. And at that time point that human being was right, while the majority who thought otherwise were wrong. Our current education system and sites like those reinforce the anti-scientific view that students should study and memorize what “experts” says, and that majorities dictate what’s logically correct or not. As Gibson said (1964): “Do we, in our schools and colleges, foster the spirit of inquiry, of skepticism, of adventurous thinking, of acquiring experience and reflecting on it? Or do we place a premium on docility, giving major recognition to the ability of the student to return verbatim in examinations that which he has been fed?”
Alright sorry for the rant and tangent! I feel strongly about this situation.
Science is based on peer review, which means that a scientific opinion will be accepted only if it can convince a sufficient number of other scientists. This is not too different from using an explicit voting system to rank answers.
All scientists accept the possibility that what they currently believe to be true may one day be considered false. Science does not pretend to describe only eternal truths. So it’s not a problem if the most popular answer today becomes the least popular answer in the future, or vice versa.
Peer review, as the name says, is review, not “acceptance”. At least in principle, its goal is to help you check whether the logic behind your analysis is sound and your experiments have no flaws. That’s why one can find articles with completely antithetical results or theses, both peer-reviewed (and I’m not speaking of purchased pseudo peer-review). Unfortunately it has also become a misused political or business tool, that’s for sure – see “impact factors”, “h-indexes”, and similar bulls**t.
Peer review is a general principle that goes beyond the formalities of journal publication.
Even if you never submit your work to a peer-reviewed journal, your scientific claims will be judged by a community of scientific peers. If your work is not accepted by your scientific peers, then you are not contributing to scientific knowledge.
For example, most homeopathic claims are never submitted to journals. They are nevertheless judged by the scientific community, and are not persuasive enough to be accepted as scientific knowledge.
You’re simplifying the situation and dynamics of science too much.
If you submit or share a work that contains a logical or experimental error – it says “2+2=5” somewhere – then yes, your work is not accepted, it’s wrong, and you should discard it too.
But many works have no (visible) logical flaws and present hypotheses within current experimental errors. They explore or propose, or start from, alternative theses. They may be pursued and considered by a minority, even a very small one, while the majority pursues something else. But this doesn’t make them “rejected”. In fact, theories followed by minorities periodically have breakthroughs and suddenly win the majority. This is a vital part of scientific progress. Except in the “2+2=5” case, it’s a matter of majority/minority, but that does emphatically not mean acceptance/rejection.
On top of that, the relationship between “truth” and “majority” is even more fascinatingly complex. Let me give you an example.
Probably (this is just statistics from personal experience) the vast majority of physicists would tell you that “energy is conserved”. A physicist specialized in general relativity, however, would point out that there’s a difference between a conserved quantity (somewhat like a fluid) and a balanced quantity. And energy strictly speaking is balanced, not conserved. This fact, however, creates no tension: if you have a simple conversation – 30 min or a couple hours – with a physicist who stated that “energy is conserved”, and you explain the precise difference, show the equations, examine references together etc, that physicist will understand the clarification and simply agree; no biggie. In situations where that physicist works, this results in little practical difference (but obviously there are situations where the difference is important.)
A guided tour through general relativity (see this discussion by Baez as a starting point, for example) will also convince a physicist who still insisted that energy is conserved even after the balance vs conservation difference was clarified. With energy, either “conservation” makes no sense, or if we want to force a sense, then it’s false. (I myself have been on both sides of this dialogue.)
This shows a paradoxical situation: the majority may state something that’s actually not true – but the majority itself would simply agree with this, if given the chance! This paradoxical discrepancy arises especially today owing to specialization and too little or too slow osmosis among the different specialities, plus excessive simplification in postgraduate education (they present approximate facts as exact). Large groups maintain some statements as facts simply because the more correct point of view is too slow to spread through their community. The energy claim is one example, there are others (thermodynamics and quantum theory have plenty). I think every physicist working in a specialized field is aware about a couple of such majority-vs-truth discrepancies. And this teaches humbleness, openness to reviewing one’s beliefs, and reliance on logic, not “majorities”.
Edit: a beautiful book by O’Connor & Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread, discusses this phenomenon and models of this phenomenon.
I think the issue is how people got to Stack Overflow. People generally ask Google first, which hopefully would take you somewhere where somebody has already asked your question and it has answers.
Type a technical question into Google. Back in the day it would likely take you to Experts Exchange. Couple of years later it would take you to Stack Overflow. Now it takes you to some AI generated bullshit that scraped something that might have contained an answer, but was probably just more AI generated bullshit.
Either their SEO game is weak, they stopped paying Google as much for result placement, or they’ve just been overwhelmed with limitless nonsense made by bots for the sole purpose of selling advertising space that other bots will look at.
Or maybe I’m wrong and everybody is just asking ChatGPT their technical questions now, in which case god fucking help us all…
It gives decent answer and is still relatively at the top. However, if you need to ask something that isn’t there you’re going to be either intimidated or your question is going to be left unanswered for months.
I’m more inclined to ask questions on sites like Reddit, because it’s something I’m familiar with and there’s far better chance of getting it answered within couple hours.
ChatGPT is also far superior because there’s a feedback loop almost in real time. Doesn’t matter if it gives the wrong answer, it gives you something to work with and try, and you can keep asking for more ideas. That’s much preferable than having to wait for months or even years to get an answer
Ya im not sure what the deal with the hate is. ChatGPT gives you an excellent starting point and if you give it good feedback and direction you can actually churn out some pretty decent code with it.
Rather than cultivate a friendly and open community, they decided to be hostile and closed. I am not surprised by this at all, but I am surprised with how long the decline has taken. I have a number of bad/silly experiences on stackoverflow that have never been replicated on any other platform.
Like what?
Not the original commenter, but once I asked a small question when I was starting to teach myself Java (something about calendar not returning what I expected and me not understanding the documentation, but I can’t quite recall the details).
I got 9 upvotes and a few helpful answers, but the only thing i can clearly remember is one answer that said unless I had a severe learning disability I should understand the documentation and not ask (r-word) questions.I didn’t understand it because of a language barrier since I also had to teach English to myself at the same time. But that comment really hurt me for some reason. It was just unnecessary rude.
That answer eventually got removed but the first time I flagged it I got the response that the mod could not see anything wrong with the answer.
But it wasn’t even an answer! More like a comment, but even then completely unnecessary.Before that I really enjoyed the site, answering js and PHP questions, helping out a bit with formatting on other people’s questions or answers etc but ever since then I go there rarely and only if I am looking for something already answered.
Honestly I have a question I answered myself and was up for over 10 years with hundreds of views and votes only for the question to be marked as a duplicate for a question that verboten has nothing to do with the question I asked. Specifically I was working with canvas and svg and the question linked was neither thing. The other question is also 5 years newer so even if it were the same it would be a duplicate of mine, not the other way around.
Another one is a very high rated answer I gave was edited by a big contributor to add a participle several years after I wrote it and then marked as belonging to them now
Can you give more context on the second one? Everyone can edit posts and it shows both the original poster as well as the most recent editor on the post. (I’m not defending SE. I dislike them too.)
Both times i issued a dispute only for it to be completely ignored. Eventually I used a scrubber bot to delete every contribution I ever made instead of letting random power mods just steal content on my high profile posts.
Google search going to absolute shit is what happened
I also attribute most of this to google. I am used to google a coding question and getting 10 SO results i can quickly scan through. Since a year I only get blogposts about the general behaviour of the thing i was googling.
I don’t understand. Google search has its issues for sure, but it always shows stack overflow highly when I search programming things.
This is the most likely explanation. It doesn’t make sense to have such a dramatic dropoff in user behavior without an obvious trigger.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of smug, self-satisfied shitheads.
I miss when SO used to be a good place to ask questions.
I said I was a novice on the Code Review site and then the one answer I got told me to look into something like “mount genius and the valley of stupid” like dude, I fucking said I was a novice, I’m not claiming to be a genius. All over me using a term wrong. And when I asked what term they’d use they still smarted off. It wasn’t until I asked them again that they told me the term I was actually looking for.
I remember going to the vmware communities looking for help almost 20 years ago and some smug person was really upset that I didn’t use the right wording when I was starting out. He spent something like 2 whole days worth of posting. It was a chore to divine what he was saying while stumbling through his weird rant/lecture about proper terminology. I eventually called him out on it and never went back.
So long story short, communities and companies who don’t nip this kind of behavior in the bud and heavily moderate the assholes almost universally turn into the next expertsexchange community. Stack Overflow kind of leaned heavily into enshitification because of this, they eventually just stopped caring about what was being put on their forums, maintaining high content quality, and getting rid of argumentative power-users. Ironically reddit was a much nicer community and usually you’d find an answer or get help without the attitude, especially in the IT space.
SO claims a lot of this is because it is meant to be a tool where people go for correct answers and I get that, but getting downvoted or your question being closed as a duplicate feel mean regardless of how welcoming the admins claim they’re trying to make the place.
A big part of the problem is that users seek out reasons to close answers as opposed to seeking ways to try and fix them and avoid them being closed. And they’re rewarded for it! I think review queues overall are probably a positive but when you’re sitting there just going through them and you find one that could be closed as is but also could possibly be fixed, which are you going to try and do? Vote to close which takes like one second of effort or try and edit which could take a lot longer and may even involve input from OP? Then even if you do try and fix it, what if everyone else does vote to close?
I’ve had a question closed and my comments explaining why it wasn’t a duplicate deleted. The response from everyone was that because I have been using the site off and on for years they expected me to understand the process so they didn’t explain to me that I needed to edit and instead just deleted my comment and didn’t tell me anything.
The amount of anxiety I have when asking a question there is insane. And I have 6k+ rep. They weren’t wrong, I do know the site well. I have used it a lot. But like, of me, an experienced user, is afraid to ask a question that’s messed up. I’ve sat there and been like “okay, people will probably think it is a duplicate of this, I really hate getting questions closed as duplicates so I’m going to preemptively explain why it isn’t a a dupe” and then they still close it as a dupe. It’s insane. Or they find the one magical combination of words that I didn’t quite think of despite spending a good ten minutes or so looking for dupes prior to asking that did ask my question the act smug about it.
I don’t really use the sites anymore. Not even the more lighthearted and fun ones like RPG and World Building. I’ve just been so soured to it.
The amount of anxiety I have when asking a question there is insane. And I have 6k+ rep. They weren’t wrong, I do know the site well. I have used it a lot. But like, of me, an experienced user, is afraid to ask a question that’s messed up.
Yup that’s practically the same problem I had. I posted maybe one question over the past 15 years. I got crapped on by one of their power users for not doing something properly and I never posted or asked a question again. I don’t even remember what account I originally used, either.
This is sort of why I like ChatGPT, I don’t get harassed for asking something incredibly stupid, and the crappy answers are about as bad as the “marked as duplicate” nonsense that gets me nowhere anyways. Why bother trying to interface with those communities ever again? IT in general already tilts heavily towards salty misanthropes, I’ll pass on that.
All questions have been asked and all answers have been given
and copilot and chatgpt give good enough answers without being unfriendly
ChatGPT has no knowledge of the answers it gives. It is simply a text completion algorithm. It is fundamentally the same as the thing above your phone keyboard that suggests words as you type, just with much more training data.
Who cares? It still gives me the answers i am looking for.
Yeah it gives you the answers you ask it to give you. It doesn’t matter if they are true or not, only if they look like the thing you’re looking for.
What point are you trying to make? LLMs are incredibly useful tools
Yeah for generating prose, not for solving technical problems.
not for solving technical problems
One example is writing complex regex. A simple well written prompt can get you 90% the way there. It’s a huge time saver.
for generating prose
It’s great a writing boilerplate code so I can spend more of my time architecturing solutions instead of typing.
You’ve never actually used them properly then.
the good thing if it gives you the answer in a programming language is that its quite simple tontestvif the output is what you expect, also a lot of humans hive wrong answers…
How is that practically different from a user perspective than answers on SO? Either way, I still have to try the suggested solutions to see if they work in my particular situation.
At least with those, you can be reasonably confident that a single person at some point believed in their answer as a coherent solution
That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
An incorrect answer can still be valuable. It can give some hint of where to look next.
@magic_lobster_party I can’t believe someone wrote that. Incorrect answers do more harm than being useful. If the person asks and don’t know, how should he or she know it’s incorrect and look for a hint?
Well if they refer to coding solution they’re right : sometimes non-working code can lead to a working solution. if you know what you’re doing ofc
In the context of coding it can be valuable. I produced two tables in a database and asked it to write a query and it did 90% of the job. It was using an incorrect column for a join. If you are doing it for coding you should notice very quickly what is wrong at least if you have experience.
In my experience, with both coding and natural sciences, a slightly incorrect answer that you attempt to apply, realize is wrong in some way during initial testing/analysis, then you tweak until it’s correct, is very useful, especially compared to not receiving any answer or being ridiculed by internet randos.
I don’t know about others’ experiences, but I’ve been completely stuck on problems I only figured out how to solve with chatGPT. It’s very forgiving when I don’t know the name of something I’m trying to do or don’t know how to phrase it well, so even if the actual answer is wrong it gives me somewhere to start and clues me in to the terminology to use.
Google the provided solution for additional sources. Often when I search for solutions to problems I don’t get the right answer directly. Often the provided solution may not even work for me.
But I might find other clues of the problem which can aid me in further research. In the end I finally have all the clues I need to find the answer to my question.
There was a story once that said if you put an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters, they would eventually produce the works of William Shakespeare.
So far, the Internet has not shown that to be true. Example: Twitter.
Now we have an artificial monkey remixing all of that, at our request, and we’re trying to find something resembling Hamlet’s Soliloquy in what it tells us. What it gives you is meaningless unless you interpret it in a way that works for you – how do you know the answer is correct if you don’t test it? In other words, you have to ensure the answers it gives are what you are looking for.
In that scenario, it’s just a big expensive rubber duck you are using to debug your work.
There’s a bunch of people telling you “ChatGPT helps me when I have coding problems.” And you’re responding “No it doesn’t.”
Your analogy is eloquent and easy to grasp and also wrong.
Fair point, and thank you. Let me clarify a bit.
It wasn’t my intention to say ChatGPT isn’t helpful. I’ve heard stories of people using it to great effect, but I’ve also heard stories of people who had it return the same non-solutions they had already found and dismissed. Just like any tool, actually…
I was just pointing out that it is functionally similar to scanning SO, tech docs, Slashdot, Reddit, and other sources looking for an answer to our question. ChatGPT doesn’t have a magical source of knowledge that we collectively also do not have – it just has speed and a lot processing power. We all still have to verify the answers it gives, just like we would anything from SO.
My last sentence was rushed, not 100% accurate, and shows some of my prejudices about ChatGPT. I think ChatGPT works best when it is treated like a rubber duck – give it your problem, ask it for input, but then use that as a prompt to spur your own learning and further discovery. Don’t use it to replace your own thinking and learning.
Even if ChatGPT is giving exactly the same quality of answer as you can get out of Stack Overflow, it gives it to you much more quickly and pieces together multiple answers into a script you can copy and work with immediately. And it’s polite when doing so, and will amend and refine its answers immediately for you if you engage it in some back-and-forth dialogue. That makes it better than Stack Overflow and not functionally similar.
I’ve done plenty of rubber duck programming before, and it’s nothing like working with ChatGPT. The rubber duck never writes code for me. It never gives me new information that I didn’t already know. Even though sometimes the information ChatGPT gives me is wrong, that’s still far better than just mutely staring back at me like a rubber duck does. A rubber duck teaches me nothing.
“Verifying” the answer given by ChatGPT can be as simple as just going ahead and running it. I can’t think of anything simpler than that, you’re going to have to run the code eventually anyway. Even if I was the world’s greatest expert on something, if I wrote some code to do a thing I would then run it to see if it worked rather than just pushing it to master and expecting everything to be fine.
This doesn’t “replace your own thinking and learning” any more than copying and pasting a bit of code out of Stack Overflow does. Indeed, it’s much easier to learn from ChatGPT because you can ask it “what does that line with the angle brackets do?” or “Could you add some comments to the loop explaining all the steps” or whatever and it’ll immediately comply.
I honestly believe people are way overvaluing the responses ChatGPT gives.
For a lot of boilerplating scenarios or trying to resolve some pretty standard stuff, it’s good.
I had an issue a while back with QueryDSL running towards an MSSQL instance, which I tried resolving by asking ChatGPT some pretty straightforward questions regarding the tool. Without going too much into detail, I basically got stuck in a loop where ChatGPT kept suggesting solutions that were not viable at all in QueryDSL. I pointed it out, trying to point out why what it did was wrong and it tried correcting itself suggesting the same broken solutions.
The AI is great until whatever it has been taught previously doesn’t cover your situation. My solution was a bit of digging in google away, which helpfully made me resolve the issue. But had I been stuck with only ChatGPT I’d still be going around in loops.
It really doesn’t work as a replacement for google/docs/forums. It’s another tool in your belt, though, once you get a good feel for its limitations and use cases; I think of it more like upgraded rubber duck debugging. Bad for getting specific information and fixes, but great for getting new perspectives and/or directions to research further.
ChatGPT is great for simple questions that have been asked and answered a million times previously. I don’t see any downside to these types of questions not being posted to SO…
Exactly this. SO is now just a repository of answers that ChatGPT and it’s ilk can train against. A high percentage is questions that SO users need answers to are already asked and answered. New and novel problems arise so infrequently thanks to the way modern tech companies are structured that an AI that can read and train on the existing answers and update itself periodically is all most people need anymore… (I realize that was rambling, I hope it made sense)
So soon they will start responding with “this has been asked before, let’s change the subject”
Exactly! It will all come full circle
yes! this! is chatgpt intelligent: no! does it more often than not give good enough answers to daily but somewhat obscure ans specific programming questions: yes! is a person on SO intelligent: maybe. do they give good enough answers to daily but somewhat obscure ans specific programming questions: mostly
Its not great for complex stuff, but for quick questions if you are stuck. the answers are given quicker, without snark and usually work
A repository of often (or at least not seldom) outdated answers.
As long as a LLM doesn’t run into a corner, making the same mistakes over and over again, it is magical to just paste some code, ask what’s wrong with it and receiving a detailed explanation + fix. Even better is when you ask “now can you add this and this to it?” and it does.
There’s an open source equivalent at https://codidact.com/
Thank you! never heard of, it looks very interesting!
SO is such a miserable and toxic place that oftentimes I’d rather read more documentation or reach out to someone elsewhere like Discord. And I would never post a question there or comment there.
I’d rather read the docs than just about anything. I love good documentation. I wanna know how and why things work.
The problem is that basically nobody has good docs. They are almost all either incomplete or unreadable.
A lot of companies won’t employ technical writers, who exist to make good, thorough, complete and well-presented documentation… they rather assume their engineers can just write the docs.
And no, no they can’t… very few engineers study the principles of effective communication. They may understand things, but they can’t explain them.
While I agree, writing good docs is hard for a very intangible benefit. Honestly, it feels like doing the same work twice, with the prospect of doing it again and again in the future as the software is updated. It’s a little demoralizing.
It is hard, I agree. I’m not very good at it myself. But even semi-decent docs are better than googling around or stepping through a decompiled package.
And it’s super useful to new developers, and would have saved me a lot of time and frustration when I was new.
The pandemic ended
I don’t usually use it,I had a problem a week ago and I thought about asking there.
I couldn’t. The question wasn’t written in a way that would pass the automod. No shit they are losing people… I gave up in the end
Tried to answer a question got shutdown by mods immediately. I was wondering how stack overflow is going to survive. I know now it won’t.
As alluded to by comments here already, a long coming death.
Will probably go down as a marker of the darker side of tech culture, which, not coincidentally (?) manifested at time when the field was most confused as to what constitutes its actual discipline and whether it was an engineering field at all.
