This post contains the text of a question that I originally planned to post on SuperUser, a StackExchange website. By the time I finished it, however, I realized that its style and substance would draw hostility at SuperUser. So I have opted to put the text here, with some rephrasing and elaboration, and to link to this post from there.
I was moved to compose this post when I encountered this image, during an attempt to pose a question about computer software at SuperUser (note especially the orange bubble).
When I began to write about that orange bubble, SuperUser presented me with relevant questions posed by other SuperUser participants. For instance, Gaius Augustus asked, “Is superuser unfriendly to beginners?” His question pertained primarily to rudeness among users. But as I thought about it, I realized my own question had to do with the site itself, as distinct from users.
Some users might have found it helpful if I had posted a link from the Gaius Augustus question to this post. After all, this post did constitute a development of his concerns. Unfortunately, as pointed out by a user who called him/herself “unknown (google),” in a question titled “Why so many barriers for newcomers on this dicussion forum?” (sic), newbies were barred from basic participation (in this instance, the ability to volunteer a link), due to lack of SuperUser reputation points.
unknown (google) may have lacked reputation because s/he was a newcomer. For me, the situation was different. I had been blogging about computers for ten years. My blogs‘ total of about 1.7 million pageviews was small compared to the major sites, but it was not nothing. Judging from users’ comments there, it would seem that I might have something to offer to the SuperUser community.
I lacked reputation to post a simple link, in part, because I was too intimidated to participate. The intimidation derived from prior experience on SuperUser and other StackExchange sites, on two levels: first, I had drawn negativity for asking simple questions and offering useful answers and, second, I had drawn outright hostility for asking about that negativity.
Again, the focus here is on structural hostility within the site itself, not on behavioral hostility encouraged by that structure. The image (above) illustrates structural hostility on the first level. The image shows that I had gotten as far as stating my question, and then the SuperUser site promptly responded with a criticism, as follows:
My question: WordPress in Opera: Suddenly “You Don’t Have Any Drafts”
SuperUser site reply: The question you’re asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed.
Somehow, the website’s software perceived “subjectivity” in a question that I was about to compose, regarding the appearance of an unexpected message in the Opera browser. I would appreciate an explanation of that message, not from fellow users who must guess at it, but from the SuperUser coder responsible for its browbeating absurdity.
Consider another example, also on the first level (i.e., involving built-in hostility to seemingly legitimate questions). This was a question I posed on StackOverflow. It was a question about batch files. It seemed like a reasonable question. I have no idea why its net score is -2 at present.
The problem arising in that instance was captured by user623852, who asked, “Why is SuperUser such a negative board?” Data advanced by that user, and by respondents to his/her question, supported the impression of a negative bias. The question here is, why was the site structured to facilitate that negativity? In my batch file example, why were the downvoters not required to provide a rationale that, itself, would have been vulnerable to downvoting? If their objections were due to, say, the style of the question, why were they not obliged to make clear that they were not grading its substance?
The answer may be that the SuperUser site placed trust in its insiders. For some purposes, that trust was surely warranted. But people who have been doing this stuff for years can become impatient with beginners. Some of those responsible for building and maintaining the site may have become effectively incompetent, for purposes of instructing newbies, just as a college English professor might be incompetent at teaching first-grade reading. The site did not appear to be structured to counteract any tendency toward that sort of incompetence over time.
As I say, there appeared to be two levels of structural hostility toward non-professionals. The foregoing examples involved the first of those two levels: they illustrated built-in support for potentially irresponsible negativity toward legitimate questions that were perhaps not phrased or conceived as an expert would phrase or conceive them. The second level involved structural hostility toward those who would question this state of affairs.
It may have seemed that SuperUser had no such second-level hostility — that, to the contrary, it appreciated such questioning, as demonstrated by the existence of a “meta” area in which users could voice complaints about SuperUser. Then again, keeping the dissent in-house may have been more effective, for purposes of maintaining the status quo, than telling dissenters to take their complaints elsewhere.
Allowing ineffectual complaints on a webpage was probably not a good test of commitment on this level — of support, that is, for those who challenged the structure of SuperUser and its affiliated sites. The better test would be, not whether the site merely allowed dissent, to let people blow off steam, but whether it heard and responded proactively to what those people were saying.
On that, the evidence was not encouraging. Consider the users cited above, and the dates of their complaints: unknown (google) (October 2009), Gaius Augustus (July 2015), user623852 (August 2016). It was now nearly October 2017, and I was still finding that the structure of the site actively discouraged non-professionals from participating, even when they seemed to be relatively knowledgeable individuals posing worthy questions.
It appeared, in other words, that SuperUser’s management was actually not very concerned with non-insider perspectives, and did not really mind if outsiders found that the site was built to encourage the bullying, arrogance, and (sometimes) stupidity through which officially approved users often discouraged would-be users from participating.
The second-level structural hostility may have been especially obtrusive, to me, due to a somewhat traumatic prior experience of questioning a certain rule at a StackExchange site. In that case, someone summarized my question in these words: “Why am I getting push-back for linking to my own blog posts in answers?” My writeup, explaining my question, was substantially as follows:
I posted an answer to a question. It linked to a blog post where I had gone through the answer in detail. What I posted did not seem any different from any number of other answers I have seen on Stack Exchange.
For some reason, someone at Stack Exchange notified me that I was in trouble for doing this. I attempted to find out why my answer was objectionable. The person declined to explain. . . .
I suppose I could try to put the full text of the post into my answer here. But I doubt that would go over very well either. The post contains several thousand words.
That is, I had worked through a problem, I saw that someone else had the same problem, I offered a potentially superior solution; and for that, I was penalized. The people at StackExchange were very worried that I might be getting away with something — I might be getting a little bit of self-promotion out of my answer. But they weren’t worried enough to ask whether their reasoning made any sense. How would it benefit me to give a few computer geeks a link to a site that paid me nothing? If I were concerned with getting attention, I would be blogging about, I don’t know, Kim Kardashian, or cats.
So, again, in that instance, there was an example of first-level structural hostility toward non-professional participation — but also, and more importantly, of second-level structural hostility toward critics of StackExchange management. The hostility toward me was particularly intensive, in that case, due to a rising level of personal dislike voiced by a StackExchange moderator who admitted having an emotional response — which, even if it had been appropriate, should never have played a role in the website’s response to my question. In short, my question, challenging the website’s overreaction to external links, wound up with a score of -22. It wouldn’t have gotten that large negative score on a site driven by a managerial determination to hear and respond intelligently to user grievances.
To summarize: SuperUser and, apparently, at least some other StackExchange sites seemed to be structured in such a way as to discourage and penalize (1) non-professionals who posted real questions, and who attempted to provide helpful answers, and (2) those who questioned the site’s hostility to (1). The question posed here was, Why? Why was the site not better structured to encourage participation by outsiders; why was it unresponsive to their complaints; why did it facilitate unexplained and potentially irresponsible negativity by seasoned users who, in some cases, simply seemed to be tired of non-professionals?
I’ll mention, in closing, that, as in that previous example, I anticipated some nitpicking of this writeup (regarding e.g., its length). I was aware, in other words, that some StackExchange insiders preferred disorganized exchanges consisting of an excessively brief initial question, followed by an unnecessary tangle of puzzled comments and misguided answers. To avoid that sort of confusion, this writeup seeks to provide enough examples to support the premise of structural hostility, so as to focus attention on the question of why. And since the site was predictably hostile to that sort of expression, I opted to move this writeup to this location in my computer blog.
At SuperUser, I entered a link to this post, and a brief explanation of what it was about. At this writing, that entry had drawn a score of -10. It did appear that I was correct in surmising that users authorized to vote on that site were not interested in hearing what I have said here.