Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
Since this is obviously open to individual answers, I will give my reason. The structure of SE leads to it being much more toxic for casual use. There is a reason people always joke about their S...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Michael
·
2024-04-19T07:23:45Z (7 days ago)
causal -> casual. Some other proofreading help.
Since this is obviously open to individual answer, I will answer my reason. The structure of SE leads to it being much more toxic for causal use. There is a reason people always joke about their SE questioning being closed as a repeat of a question that doesn't even answer their question. The points on the site give powerusers a physical authority over those who do not poweruse.That is to the say to the casual user asking a "good" question is very daunting, often because of arbitrary requirements in a community resistant to change. That is not to say there are not bad questions, there definitely are, but the definition is less rigid than the censors would lead you to believe.
- Since this is obviously open to individual answers, I will give my reason. The structure of SE leads to it being much more toxic for casual use. There is a reason people always joke about their SE questions being closed as a duplicate of a question that doesn't even answer their question. The reputation points on the site give power-users a physical authority over those who do not power-use.
- To the casual user, asking a "good" question is very daunting, often because of arbitrary requirements in a community resistant to change. That is not to say there are not bad questions—there definitely are—but the definition is less rigid than the censors would lead you to believe.
#2: Post edited
by
Aidan
·
2020-09-10T18:52:45Z (over 3 years ago)
Since this is obviously open to individual answer, I will answer my reason. The structure of SE leads to it being much more toxic for causal use. There is a reason people always joke about their SE questioning being closed as a repeat of a question that doesn't even answer their question. The points on the site give powerusers a physical authority over those who do not.- That is to the say to the casual user asking a "good" question is very daunting, often because of arbitrary requirements in a community resistant to change. That is not to say there are not bad questions, there definitely are, but the definition is less rigid than the censors would lead you to believe.
- Since this is obviously open to individual answer, I will answer my reason. The structure of SE leads to it being much more toxic for causal use. There is a reason people always joke about their SE questioning being closed as a repeat of a question that doesn't even answer their question. The points on the site give powerusers a physical authority over those who do not poweruse.
- That is to the say to the casual user asking a "good" question is very daunting, often because of arbitrary requirements in a community resistant to change. That is not to say there are not bad questions, there definitely are, but the definition is less rigid than the censors would lead you to believe.
#1: Initial revision
by
Aidan
·
2020-09-10T15:44:54Z (over 3 years ago)
Since this is obviously open to individual answer, I will answer my reason. The structure of SE leads to it being much more toxic for causal use. There is a reason people always joke about their SE questioning being closed as a repeat of a question that doesn't even answer their question. The points on the site give powerusers a physical authority over those who do not. That is to the say to the casual user asking a "good" question is very daunting, often because of arbitrary requirements in a community resistant to change. That is not to say there are not bad questions, there definitely are, but the definition is less rigid than the censors would lead you to believe.