[surgical_fire]

> "Having your problem addressed" is not a valid reason to post on Stack Overflow. You are expected before posting to have done enough analysis to the point where if your question is answered, you can solve the underlying problem yourself.

If I can solve the problem myself, why do you think I would ask a question?

It may sound a silly question, but what you are describing is the reason why I never actively interacted with SO (never asked, answered, nor upvoted). Either what I was looking for was already there, or I completely ignored the site.

Maybe it is the reason why it is dying. It's just not that useful after all.

[zahlman]

>>You are expected before posting to have done enough analysis to the point where if your question is answered, you can solve the underlying problem yourself.

>If I can solve the problem myself, why do you think I would ask a question?

You are expected to be able to analyze the problem to the point where you have one specific question, get the answer, and solve the problem now that you have the answer.

That is: we will not do the analysis for you. We will fill in the gap in your knowledge. But you have to figure out where that gap is.

> Either what I was looking for was already there

The goal is to maximize the chance of this (and that you find what you're looking for promptly). When you don't find it, you can help by contributing the question part of what's missing. But, in turn, this is supposed to improve the chance that the next person can promptly find your question - and understand it, and be confident that you have the same question, and read the answer, and go on to solve a potentially very different problem.

[surgical_fire]

> You are expected to be able to analyze the problem to the point where you have one specific question, get the answer, and solve the problem now that you have the answer.

> That is: we will not do the analysis for you. We will fill in the gap in your knowledge.

I see. That makes more sense, I misinterpreted your original reply.

That said, many times I did find the specific question I had, but the question was closed as duplicate (or whatever jargon you use), but the existing answered question was for whatever reason not exactly what I was looking for. Not really encouraging for me to interact with the site, and would probably just sink my time furter.

> The goal is to maximize the chance of this (and that you find what you're looking for promptly).

This used to be more common, many years ago. I can't orecise why, but it has been a while that I found the answer I was looking for on SO.

> When you don't find it, you can help by contributing the question part of what's missing. But, in turn, this is supposed to improve the chance that the next person can promptly find your question - and understand it, and be confident that you have the same question, and read the answer, and go on to solve a potentially very different problem.

I suppose I could. But asking a meaningful question takes effort, and I have no idea if the powers that be will share my idea that the question is meaningful, or if it will be marked as a duplicate to some similar issue. Not exactly encouraging to participation.

[zahlman]

>was for whatever reason not exactly what I was looking for.

See: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/384711 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/254697 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/385343 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/426205

Not to dismiss you - but it's important to understand what the standard is for "duplication". This has changed over the years because the original (very narrow) interpretation turned out to be unviable - it doesn't scale. (And "it doesn't scale" is a big part of why Stack Overflow was created - where "it" is the traditional discussion forum model.)

>but it has been a while that I found the answer I was looking for on SO.

Because your search query is equally suited to find a bunch of garbage questions that should have been closed (and then deleted when they weren't improved) - often ones that are about something completely different, but click-bait because of the words in the title (often a result of OP completely misidentifying the problem and not producing a proper MRE).

>asking a meaningful question takes effort

It does. In fact, when I've written self-answered Q&A to share knowledge, I've often found the question harder than the answer.

The reputation system was very poorly conceived. It incentivizes terrible behaviours, while the best results will come from intrinsic motivation anyway. (Plus it carries the implicit assumption that answering questions demonstrates an understanding of site policy, when the opposite is often true: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/357021 )

> my idea that the question is meaningful, or if it will be marked as a duplicate to some similar issue

Duplicates are not inherently bad. They help others find the original, and the duplicate count statistics help identify important questions and topics. Furthermore, it's 100% in keeping with policy to close something as a duplicate of a newer question (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/404535 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/258697 ). If you ask something well, and get a good answer, and then someone notices that it was asked before, your version is likely to stand instead. (And the target for a duplicate closure must have an accepted or upvoted answer.)

[soco]

Your point makes totally sense and it also sounds like a robotic overlord from some SF dystopia: cold and following its own programmed rules to the painful detail. As the other commenter pointed out: you are definitely right and we see your point. But it's a also because of it that I stopped using SO years except for maybe causally searching. Let me draw an inaccurate parallel: security, if done perfectly, lets nobody achieve anything.

[zahlman]

Having to say the same things repeatedly wears on one. I shouldn't really be participating in these threads, I should be blogging about it instead.

[yuzzi]

Yes. This