[cs02rm0]

> StackExchange had ridiculously high barriers to participation, making it inclusive to the long-time users on the site, but exclusive to the newbie participants who found themselves blocked for asking questions.

I'm no Jon Skeet, but I've had an account since 2009, I answered a question early on that's had well over 1000 upvotes, which I think is 10k of reputation for that answer alone.

Yet I certainly couldn't ask a question without suffering the same. That terrible experience wasn't reserved for newbies. I learned to stop contributing pretty quickly, well before AI.

[xeromal]

Now that's a name I haven't heard about in a long time. haha

[rcxdude]

The barriers are far more understanding the very counterintuitive set of rules and expectations of the site than they were accumulating the points (though I don't think the decidedly odd set of things that require a certain reputation to do help at all).

[zahlman]

Would you be willing to show questions you attempted to ask? I'd be happy to help explain how policy works/worked there.

[feoren]

I love the implication that thousands of people, from a broad spectrum, who all had the same negative experiences with what was obviously a serious endemic problem with the site, all just needed to understand the policy better. That was clearly the issue.

[zahlman]

If thousands of Americans travelled to a tiny country where cars drive on the left, and all tried to drive on the right as they do at home, would that make the country in the wrong? Would it be a "serious endemic problem" with the country?

[Athari]

Out of 10 times I asked for this, somebody replied with a link once. Most people do understand that they have violated the rules, they just don't agree with the rules.

[mh-]

We know how it works. That's why we all eventually gave up on helping people there (years before I knew what an LLM was.)

[zahlman]

If you knew how it worked, you would have understood that answering questions is only indirectly about "helping people", by hopefully building something that third parties can make use of later. The objective is not "the OP's problem was solved", but "the OP's question was answered" (which requires that there is a recognizable question extracted from analyzing the problem; and that there is one such question; and of course, those third parties are better served if they are all routed to the same place where the best answers are already written.)

If you were there to volunteer troubleshooting, or the programming equivalent of "tech support", you were in the wrong place. If you were interested in going back and forth with suggestions to help debug a program, you were in the wrong place. All of that is supposed to happen before the question is posted. The question is about why a specific thing works a specific way, or how to accomplish a specific atomic objective.

[mh-]

I believe the disconnect here is you're describing how some wanted it to work vs. how it played out in the real world. In practice, it became an unrewarding place to contribute high quality original content to.