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 days. The data is from https://stackoverflow.com/site-analytics Traffic Votes Posts
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.
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 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.
Half of a fuck-ton is still a lot. If they scale down their operational costs they can still run a very comfortable business for a long while on these kinds of numbers.
It’s hostile to new users and when you do ask you will likely not get answer might get scolded or just get closed as duplicate. Then there is the fact that most has answers doesn’t matter if it’s outdated or just bad advice. Pretty much everything has GitHub now. Usually I just go raise the question there if I have a genuine question get an answer from the developers themselves. Or just go to their website api/ library doc they have gotten good lately. Then finally recent addition with chatgpt you can ask just about any stupid question you have and maybe it may give some idea to fix the problem you encounter. Pretty much the ultimate rubber duck buddy.
There is a lot of Stack Overflow hate in this thread. I never had a bad experience. I was always on there yelling at noobs, telling them to Google it, and linking to irrelevant questions. It was just wholesome fun that briefly dulled my crippling insecurities
Sadly, it really is necessary if one wants to be sure nobody actually takes the sarcasm seriously. It’s hard for people to tell in a textual medium.
Heck, my style of humor in RL is often sarcasm or deliberately ludicrous comments and people still sometimes go “wait, really?” Even though they know me well.
Yeah but those people who take the sarcasm seriously are fools and you can’t make things foolproof.
Encouraging and putting up with hair-splitting lawyerly un-generous readings of comments is what leads to people just straight up interpreting any “Plus I’m being genuine here” messages as lies.
We need to trust our readers, else we end up in an echo chamber culture where any deviation from the Party line is interpreted as “disruptive person who must be banned to protect our community”.
These things are linked.
The ability to deliver and detect sarcasm without training wheels is a layer of communication we need and can’t afford to abandon, in order to maintain a productive conversational environment.
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.
Gibson was correct about much of our education system and Galileo was certainly right about the consequences of overvaluing mediocre wit that merely happened to well-timed. what neither of them had to content with, however, was the internet and how social media can combine the inability to reason critically and mediocre wit with crippling insecurities and anti-social personalities to what should be predictable results.
a least Gibson understood that a technocratic future didn’t imply that people’s lives would necessarily improve.
I have to agree with this cause I have run into not a couple but many in recent years where when a proper answer is given, the accepted one despite being flawed or not recommended(Python 2->3 changes for example) anymore, it’s still the highest voted one. And proper answer is in 3rd or 4th place. And it’s where the old r/science shine cause you can properly ask some really specific domain question there and a qualified scientist might just pop up and answer you in detail. ( not that they can’t be wrong, just highly unlikely in current understanding of those topics. )
Voting determines the sorting precedence. It’s a way of handling the fact that the site contains more content than a person can read. It’s a way of guiding what they should read first given limited time.
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”.
Why is everyone saying this is because Stack Overflow is toxic? Clearly the decline in traffic is because of ChatGPT. I can say from personal experience that I’ve been visiting Stack Overflow way less lately because ChatGPT is a better tool for answering my software development questions.
I think the smugness of StackOverflow is still part of it. Even if ChatGPT sometimes fabricates imaginary code, it’s tone is flowery and helpful, compared to the typical pretentiousness of Stackoverflow users.
ChatGPT works very well (and patiently) when the person asking the question is asking one that has been answered a thousand times before on Stack Overflow.
Stack Overflow works poorly when google search results for it have been declining in quality over the years and it gets cluttered with duplicate (and unanswered) content that isn’t removed in a timely manner to keep the people who answer questions with quality material (not “try {code}. Hope this helps.”).
For an individual who is unsure about what to ask or how to ask, ChatGPT can walk them through the common problems much more easily and with better (and prompt) feedback compared to trying to get someone to help in the constant scrolling of the new questions feed.
On the other hand, if you are able to ask the question well, and have something sufficiently interesting that requires human eyes, ChatGPT becomes less useful while Stack Overflow becomes more useful.
In my experience, ChatGPT is very good at interpreting documentation. So even if it hasn’t been asked on stack overflow, if it’s in the documentation that ChatGPT has indexed (or can crawl with an extension) you’ll get a pretty solid answer. I’ve been asking it a lot of AWS questions because it’s 100x better than deciphering the ancient texts that amazon publishes. Although sometimes the AWS docs are just wrong anyway.
Half the time when I ask it for advice, ChatGPT recommends nonexistent APIs and offers examples in some Frankenstein code that uses a bit of this system and a bit of that, none of which will work. But I still find its hit rate to be no worse than Stack Overflow, and it doesn’t try to humiliate you for daring to ask.
It depends on what sort of thing you’re asking about. More obscure languages and systems will result in hallucinated APIs more often. If it’s something like “how do I sort this list of whatever in some specific way in C#” or “can you write me a regex for such and such a task” then it’s far more often right. And even when ChatGPT gets something wrong, if you tell it the error you encountered from the code it’ll usually be good at correcting itself.
I find that if it gets it wrong in the first place, its corrections are often equally wrong. I guess this indicates that I’ve strayed into an area where its training data is not of good quality.
Yeah, if it’s in a state where it’s making up imaginary APIs whole cloth then in my experience you’re asking it for help with something it just doesn’t know enough about. I get the best results when I’m asking about popular stuff (such as “write me a python script to convert wav files to mp3” - it’ll know the right APIs for that sort of task, generally speaking). If I’m working on something that’s more obscure then sometimes it’s better to ask ChatGPT for generalized versions of the actual question. For example, I was tinkering with a mod for Minetest a while back that was meant to import .obj models and convert them into a voxelized representation of the object in-game. ChatGPT doesn’t know Minetest’s API very well, so I was mostly asking it for Lua code to convert the .obj into a simple array of voxel coordinates and then doing the API stuff to make it Minetest-specific for myself. The vector math was the part that ChatGPT knew best so it did an okay job on its part of the task.
The timing doesn’t really add up though. ChatGPT was published in November 2022. According to the graphs on the website linked, the traffic, the number of posts and the number of votes all already were in a visible downfall and at their lowest value of more than 2 years. And this isn’t even considering that ChatGPT took a while to get picked up into the average developer’s daily workflow.
Anyhow though, I agree that the rise of ChatGPT most likely amplified StackOverflow’s decline.
I routinely skip SO unless I’ve already exhausted most possibilities. If it was ever a good place to get answers, I frankly didn’t see it. What I did see was infinite amounts of bitching about “bad” questions, non-duplicate duplicates, lazy-ass people who just wanted an excuse not to answer, and assorted people tripping on their little iota of perceived “power”.
Hell, even the indexed results on Google etc. just stopped being even remotely useful a few years back. After that, most shit I searched for ended up in an unanswered and possibly locked question with some passive-aggressive bullshit remark. It’s got the culture of helpfulness of a 2003 gaming forum - except the people telling everyone else to go fuck themselves are mods, not pubertal kids. (Although if the mods were pubertal kids that would actually explain quite a bit)
This hasn’t been my experience at all, but I’m old and have been using SO since it was new.
I have stopped visiting it to answer questions because the questions aren’t interesting anymore. They’re either “how to do this incredibly obscure thing in SOMELIBRARY” (where I’ve never heard of that library) or “why does my function exit early at the first return statement instead of continuing on” (basic “you misunderstand programming so fundamentally a single answer is unlikely to help” kind of questions)
As far as I can tell, the range of “I’ve tried this, and partially gotten it working, but this thing does FOO when it should do BAR” questions don’t show up, or at least it doesn’t show up when I open the site.
Answering basic questions again and again and again isn’t fun. It’s something I could be paid to do, I suppose, but I’m not paid for that.
Seriously, how should a community based on short two- to three-paragraph answers react to question after question like this:
I am new to python. I would like to write a program which can collect information from multiple excel and pdf documents to output that in one single excel document to show similarities and differences between the documents . Is this possible ? If so, how and where would I start writing such a programme in python? Thanks
I haven’t tried anything yet
I mean, I’m glad that someone looks at that problem and thinks “programming could do this”, because it could, but it’s kind of a big task and getting someone from “I haven’t tried anything and am brand new to python” to that is beyond any question-and-answer forum. Welcome to programming, you may be able to get there, but it’s going to be a bit of a hike.
Mostly it seemed to be people who didn’t know what they were talking about answering questions badly in an attempt to win points, presumably in the belief that this would bolster their resume somehow. And people who can’t tell a good answer from a bad one voting on the answers.
I bet Google searching in general has gone down too. It’s often times quicker to just ask ChatGPT for an answer, and usually you can tell when an answer is correct or not. It’s like the old days of manually searching on Google for StackOverflow questions and then finding answers, and then trying to determine which one will work.
“We keep learning, over and over again, that new internet users don’t have the expectations and the mindset that we have become accustomed to.” Raghavan said, adding, “the queries they ask are completely different.”
These users don’t tend to type in keywords but rather look to discover content in new, more immersive ways, he said.
“In our studies, something like almost 40% of young people, when they’re looking for a place for lunch, they don’t go to Google Maps or Search,” he continued. “They go to TikTok or Instagram.”
Anecdotally, I’ve witnessed younger people searching on Youtube for a video explanation of a technical issue (e.g. an error code when installing some software), rather than using Google Search. It’s baffling to me, but Gen Z has a different way of consuming information.
That may be, but I know my browsing history, even as I get older and older, and I am using StackOverflow hardly at all compared to ChatGPT which I am using almost a scary amount.
I know I am not the only developer, this is how things are going.
Stack Exchange has been making a large number of bad calls over the past few years. Basically pissing off their moderators. The first one was Monica who actually sued them for it (libel or defamation or something, basically they said she was being transphobic or something when she wasn’t) and they settled. Around that time, possibly before, they removed a site from their Hot Network Questions because of a single tweet. Combine that with them constantly ignoring Stack Exchange Meta (where users and admins are meant to interact for the better of the site and discuss the sites themselves). Moderators were understandably furious when their posts get ignored in the place where Stack Exchange says they’re meant to communicate when a random tweet gets more attention and immediate action.
More recently they’ve given different instructions privately to moderators than what they said publicly with regards to suspected AI content.
I mean, combine all of that with how hostile the users of the site are. Accusing you of not searching before posting and marking your question as a duplicate because they think it is and refusing to listen to why you say it isn’t.
I’m sure they are bad, because general corporation and enshittification cycle, but when someone consistently mentions, “a single tweet” or something like that that they represent as purely innocuous (but without any explanation or link to source), gets my suspicious radar WAY up…
Your suspicion makes sense, let me provide some context.
(Quick aside for the unaware, not necessarily Snapz, Stack Exchange (SE) is the company and family of sites behind Stack Overflow. Stack Overflow is the biggest and was the first and that’s why it doesn’t have the same “Blah Exchange” branding.)
I think this answer on SE Meta describes the Tweets the best. I can’t find good archived links to the tweets and they seem to be deleted now. This answer has screenshots and quotes them. This answer is not the first thing that happens in chronological order but it is the best thing I’ve found with quotes of the tweets. So just go here to see what the tweets were. I guess it was actually about three and not just a single one like I remembered. Summary here,
stack exchange: the #1 site for your questions about dataframes and female treachery
normal website
IPS: How to approach a friend about his girlfriend asking to sleep with me?
IPS: How do I tell students at a school I volunteer at to stop flirting with me?
SciFi: Story about aliens nicknamed ‘Eechees’ who have created a network of tunnels on Mars
2:37 PM - 16 Oct 2018
1 Retweet 38 Likes
Someone then retweeted that,
When people seem confused about why Stack Overflow might not be the most welcoming/comfortable place for people to find answers to programming questions, show them this
Was the removal of this site from the [Hot Network Questions (HNQ)] in response to a Twitter complaint?
Yep.
Oh. Well, that seems… crummy.
Yep. Let me tell you about it.
The initial response to the tweet in an internal discussion wasn’t actually “let’s pull IPS out of the HNQ” it was “Maybe we should finally kill the HNQ or redesign it to make it better.” I think that reworking the HNQ is something that many people want to see - myself included. Should a tweet be the final straw when it’s been discussed so much over the years? No. Am I willing to be OK with that if it means something will change? Begrudgingly, yes… but that’s a separate issue.
[…]
It’s easy to panic and focus on optics instead of tenable solutions, and while it looks really drastic, pulling IPS from the HNQ was a pretty moderate response. Yes, it was a quick decision - like pulling your hand away from a hot stove when it burns. It was the solution we chose - without consulting IPS - because it was effective and easy to implement since it would fix the perceived problem immediately and there was already a technical solution in place for doing it.
[…]
We are going to have some internal discussions to improve how we respond in situations like this in the future. We don’t want Twitter - or Reddit or any other external site - to be where users go to get real change to happen on the network. We love our meta system - the child meta sites and Meta Stack Exchange - and we need those to be where people feel they can come to and get a response from us.
This comment explains the community’s feeling very well I believe.
The immediate response doesn’t set a great example and looks outwardly like we didn’t think things over. I think is a massive, almost impossibly massive understatement. I don’t know if you guys can ever recover any of the massive amount of community trust you lost that day. Finding out that yes, indeed, a twitter complaint is a more powerful force of site governance then months of meta discussions by the most engaged users of the site just means that there’s no point participating at all until whatever dynamic causes this is completly [sic] and provably wiped out.
[…] Removing IPS and only IPS based on the outrage of a few Twitter users is incredibly unfair to this community and sends a very strong signal that SE considers the opinions and efforts of valuable contributors practically worthless. If y’all do care about this site, then please act like it? […]
What happened was that someone called SE out on Twitter for something you could conceivably see as problematic (two questions with out of context bad titles showing next to each other in that list). After that, not only was that change done within 40 minutes of it being pointed out, this happened after MONTHS of engaged users of that site askingforthe HNQ to be adressed.
[Lemmy UI does not underline individual links, so here are the three links individually]
Yet, this happens only after Twitter outrage from non-users of the site. Why is that? Even if you have the very best of intentions and had this cooking internally for a long time (which I’m going to just assume for the purposes of this argument - good faith and all), this couldn’t possibly have had less fortunate timing.
I’m not trying to rag on Stack Exchange for doing this, but why was such a massive change made without consulting, collecting feedback from or even notifying the site’s active user base? Why does an engaged user of IPS have to visit twitter of all places to find out SE has cut out more than half of their site’s traffic overnight?
Why wasn’t the community consulted on this? We had discussions on it before, a lot of people came down in favor of restricting IPS from showing up on the sidebar in some fashion or another, and now we get this. No feedback, no discussion. Someone that apparently SE wants to placate made a stink on Twitter, and somehow that’s more effective than months of constructive reasoning in driving change. What reason, if at all, does an engaged user of the site have to trust the community governance model with this?
If it sounds like I’m really annoyed by this its because I am, yes I was in favor of removing IPS from HNQ before, but the circumstances under which it happened is making me lose all hope I have for SE’s leadership’s ability to formulate concrete plans to make changes constructively.
Edit: Make individual links as bullet points in one of the quotes since Lemmy UI does not make it clear it is three links.
Edit 2: Add summary of the tweets so more context is on this post.
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.
It’s too much to attribute to any one effect. 50% is a lot for a website of this size (don’t forget that Lemmy exploded from a migration of <5% Reddit usershare). Let’s KISS by attributing likely causes in order of magnitude:
ChatGPT became the world’s fastest growing website in a single month and it’s actually half-decent at being a code tutor
ChatGPT bots got unleashed on SO and diluted a lot of SO’s comparative advantages
Stack Overflow moderators went on strike, which further damaged content quality
Structurally speaking, SO is an environment which tends to become more elitist over time. As the userbase becomes progressively more self-selective, the population shrinks.
The SO format requires a stream of novel questions, but novel questions generally get rarer over time
Developer documentation has generally improved over time. On SO, asking about a well-documented thing is a short-circuit pathway to getting RTFM’d & discussion locked
ChatGPT came out after the beginning of the trend in the charts. That falsifies the first 2 points of the hypothesis. The strike happened a month ago so that’a gone too. 4, 5 and 6 do not appear as abrupt processes even if we assume they’re true so they likely don’t explain it. There must be something else that’s happened that could cause such a large and abrupt change before any of the above happened. I bet on a change in the major source of traffic - Google.
You’ve assumed that I want to explain the root cause of the initial decline. This is not the case. Historically, SO has seen several periods of decline. What I’m actually addressing is the question of why the decline has not stopped, because the sustained nature of this decline is what makes it unusual. If you look at the various charts, you can see a brief rally which gets cut off in late Winter 2022 – this lines up rather nicely with the timing of ChatGPT’s release, I feel.
Let’s ignore that. Tell me more about your Google angle: what’s the basis of your hypothesis?
I’m not who you were speaking to, but back when I used to read it occasionally, the stack overflow blog repeatedly mentioned that the vast majority of its traffic comes from Google. If the vast majority of your traffic comes from Google and then your traffic quantity changes dramatically, it’s reasonable to look to the source of your traffic.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
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.
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.
Half of a fuck-ton is still a lot. If they scale down their operational costs they can still run a very comfortable business for a long while on these kinds of numbers.
I think the point is not their viability as a business but their relevance in the industry.
I suppose the same amount of experts are on stackoverflow and they live in good times. There isn’t too much spam to hate about.
The mosts visits to SO does a novice programmer. Currently they live off of AI answers and from more experienced co-workers.
I think the school of SO will last and the community is not hostile; But some people tend to forget that the quality of a question is very important.
Other factors:
SO jobs was shut down.
There is no new technology which enables a new SO chapter. There aren’t too many new questions about AI.
What do you think?
It’s hostile to new users and when you do ask you will likely not get answer might get scolded or just get closed as duplicate. Then there is the fact that most has answers doesn’t matter if it’s outdated or just bad advice. Pretty much everything has GitHub now. Usually I just go raise the question there if I have a genuine question get an answer from the developers themselves. Or just go to their website api/ library doc they have gotten good lately. Then finally recent addition with chatgpt you can ask just about any stupid question you have and maybe it may give some idea to fix the problem you encounter. Pretty much the ultimate rubber duck buddy.
There is a lot of Stack Overflow hate in this thread. I never had a bad experience. I was always on there yelling at noobs, telling them to Google it, and linking to irrelevant questions. It was just wholesome fun that briefly dulled my crippling insecurities
So you never had a bad experience, just were actively causing bad experiences for others?
I think you just fell for quite an obvious case of sarcasm.
Sorry for being autistic ig
A “woosh” if you will.
It isn’t obvious unless it has the slash s!
We should leave the /s back on reddit
Sadly, it really is necessary if one wants to be sure nobody actually takes the sarcasm seriously. It’s hard for people to tell in a textual medium.
Heck, my style of humor in RL is often sarcasm or deliberately ludicrous comments and people still sometimes go “wait, really?” Even though they know me well.
Yeah but those people who take the sarcasm seriously are fools and you can’t make things foolproof.
Encouraging and putting up with hair-splitting lawyerly un-generous readings of comments is what leads to people just straight up interpreting any “Plus I’m being genuine here” messages as lies.
We need to trust our readers, else we end up in an echo chamber culture where any deviation from the Party line is interpreted as “disruptive person who must be banned to protect our community”.
These things are linked.
The ability to deliver and detect sarcasm without training wheels is a layer of communication we need and can’t afford to abandon, in order to maintain a productive conversational environment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_punctuation
(This is a lesson in history, so I’ll let the discerning reader to decide for themselves whether there is sarcasm contained in it)
Or you know, have a legitimatly very hard time distinguishing it for actual reasons.
I’m going to go without it from now on. I can handle clarifying myself if it’s absolutely necessary for someone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
I’m pretty sure they were being sarcastic.
Sarcasm
No “/s”, no sarcasm.
Perhaps it’s easier to ask copilot or chatgpt. A quick but slightly inaccurate response might satisfy the user better.
@xePBMg9 I prefer human responses.
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
ChatGPT has also found stupid typos or misplaced commas that humans can miss.
When it’s not busy introdcing it’s own typos and mistakes a human then has to catch.
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:
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.
Gibson was correct about much of our education system and Galileo was certainly right about the consequences of overvaluing mediocre wit that merely happened to well-timed. what neither of them had to content with, however, was the internet and how social media can combine the inability to reason critically and mediocre wit with crippling insecurities and anti-social personalities to what should be predictable results.
a least Gibson understood that a technocratic future didn’t imply that people’s lives would necessarily improve.
I have to agree with this cause I have run into not a couple but many in recent years where when a proper answer is given, the accepted one despite being flawed or not recommended(Python 2->3 changes for example) anymore, it’s still the highest voted one. And proper answer is in 3rd or 4th place. And it’s where the old r/science shine cause you can properly ask some really specific domain question there and a qualified scientist might just pop up and answer you in detail. ( not that they can’t be wrong, just highly unlikely in current understanding of those topics. )
But it’s not truth that is implied by voting.
Voting determines the sorting precedence. It’s a way of handling the fact that the site contains more content than a person can read. It’s a way of guiding what they should read first given limited time.
That’s how I interpret it. My question is if it’s generally interpreted that way, or misinterpreted.
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.
Why is everyone saying this is because Stack Overflow is toxic? Clearly the decline in traffic is because of ChatGPT. I can say from personal experience that I’ve been visiting Stack Overflow way less lately because ChatGPT is a better tool for answering my software development questions.
Over the last five years, I’d click a link to Stack Overflow while googling, but I’ve never made an account because of the toxicity.
But yeah, chatGPT is definitely the nail in the coffin. Being able to give it my code and ask it to point out where the annoying bug is… is amazing.
I was going to say ChatGPT.
I think the smugness of StackOverflow is still part of it. Even if ChatGPT sometimes fabricates imaginary code, it’s tone is flowery and helpful, compared to the typical pretentiousness of Stackoverflow users.
ChatGPT works very well (and patiently) when the person asking the question is asking one that has been answered a thousand times before on Stack Overflow.
Stack Overflow works poorly when google search results for it have been declining in quality over the years and it gets cluttered with duplicate (and unanswered) content that isn’t removed in a timely manner to keep the people who answer questions with quality material (not “try {code}. Hope this helps.”).
For an individual who is unsure about what to ask or how to ask, ChatGPT can walk them through the common problems much more easily and with better (and prompt) feedback compared to trying to get someone to help in the constant scrolling of the new questions feed.
On the other hand, if you are able to ask the question well, and have something sufficiently interesting that requires human eyes, ChatGPT becomes less useful while Stack Overflow becomes more useful.
In my experience, ChatGPT is very good at interpreting documentation. So even if it hasn’t been asked on stack overflow, if it’s in the documentation that ChatGPT has indexed (or can crawl with an extension) you’ll get a pretty solid answer. I’ve been asking it a lot of AWS questions because it’s 100x better than deciphering the ancient texts that amazon publishes. Although sometimes the AWS docs are just wrong anyway.
Also, you can have it talk like a catgirl maid, so I find that’s particularly helpful as well.
Half the time when I ask it for advice, ChatGPT recommends nonexistent APIs and offers examples in some Frankenstein code that uses a bit of this system and a bit of that, none of which will work. But I still find its hit rate to be no worse than Stack Overflow, and it doesn’t try to humiliate you for daring to ask.
Your follow up question should be for ChatGPT to write those APIs for you.
It depends on what sort of thing you’re asking about. More obscure languages and systems will result in hallucinated APIs more often. If it’s something like “how do I sort this list of whatever in some specific way in C#” or “can you write me a regex for such and such a task” then it’s far more often right. And even when ChatGPT gets something wrong, if you tell it the error you encountered from the code it’ll usually be good at correcting itself.
I find that if it gets it wrong in the first place, its corrections are often equally wrong. I guess this indicates that I’ve strayed into an area where its training data is not of good quality.
Yeah, if it’s in a state where it’s making up imaginary APIs whole cloth then in my experience you’re asking it for help with something it just doesn’t know enough about. I get the best results when I’m asking about popular stuff (such as “write me a python script to convert wav files to mp3” - it’ll know the right APIs for that sort of task, generally speaking). If I’m working on something that’s more obscure then sometimes it’s better to ask ChatGPT for generalized versions of the actual question. For example, I was tinkering with a mod for Minetest a while back that was meant to import .obj models and convert them into a voxelized representation of the object in-game. ChatGPT doesn’t know Minetest’s API very well, so I was mostly asking it for Lua code to convert the .obj into a simple array of voxel coordinates and then doing the API stuff to make it Minetest-specific for myself. The vector math was the part that ChatGPT knew best so it did an okay job on its part of the task.
The timing doesn’t really add up though. ChatGPT was published in November 2022. According to the graphs on the website linked, the traffic, the number of posts and the number of votes all already were in a visible downfall and at their lowest value of more than 2 years. And this isn’t even considering that ChatGPT took a while to get picked up into the average developer’s daily workflow.
Anyhow though, I agree that the rise of ChatGPT most likely amplified StackOverflow’s decline.
I routinely skip SO unless I’ve already exhausted most possibilities. If it was ever a good place to get answers, I frankly didn’t see it. What I did see was infinite amounts of bitching about “bad” questions, non-duplicate duplicates, lazy-ass people who just wanted an excuse not to answer, and assorted people tripping on their little iota of perceived “power”.
Hell, even the indexed results on Google etc. just stopped being even remotely useful a few years back. After that, most shit I searched for ended up in an unanswered and possibly locked question with some passive-aggressive bullshit remark. It’s got the culture of helpfulness of a 2003 gaming forum - except the people telling everyone else to go fuck themselves are mods, not pubertal kids. (Although if the mods were pubertal kids that would actually explain quite a bit)
This hasn’t been my experience at all, but I’m old and have been using SO since it was new.
I have stopped visiting it to answer questions because the questions aren’t interesting anymore. They’re either “how to do this incredibly obscure thing in SOMELIBRARY” (where I’ve never heard of that library) or “why does my function exit early at the first return statement instead of continuing on” (basic “you misunderstand programming so fundamentally a single answer is unlikely to help” kind of questions)
As far as I can tell, the range of “I’ve tried this, and partially gotten it working, but this thing does FOO when it should do BAR” questions don’t show up, or at least it doesn’t show up when I open the site.
Answering basic questions again and again and again isn’t fun. It’s something I could be paid to do, I suppose, but I’m not paid for that.
Seriously, how should a community based on short two- to three-paragraph answers react to question after question like this:
I mean, I’m glad that someone looks at that problem and thinks “programming could do this”, because it could, but it’s kind of a big task and getting someone from “I haven’t tried anything and am brand new to python” to that is beyond any question-and-answer forum. Welcome to programming, you may be able to get there, but it’s going to be a bit of a hike.
Mostly it seemed to be people who didn’t know what they were talking about answering questions badly in an attempt to win points, presumably in the belief that this would bolster their resume somehow. And people who can’t tell a good answer from a bad one voting on the answers.
I bet Google searching in general has gone down too. It’s often times quicker to just ask ChatGPT for an answer, and usually you can tell when an answer is correct or not. It’s like the old days of manually searching on Google for StackOverflow questions and then finding answers, and then trying to determine which one will work.
It’s not just ChatGPT that’s to blame. The VP of Knowledge & Information at Google mentioned that the younger generation doesn’t search for things the same way.
Anecdotally, I’ve witnessed younger people searching on Youtube for a video explanation of a technical issue (e.g. an error code when installing some software), rather than using Google Search. It’s baffling to me, but Gen Z has a different way of consuming information.
Edit: Clarity
That may be, but I know my browsing history, even as I get older and older, and I am using StackOverflow hardly at all compared to ChatGPT which I am using almost a scary amount.
I know I am not the only developer, this is how things are going.
ChatGPT is a big, big part of it.
Stack Exchange has been making a large number of bad calls over the past few years. Basically pissing off their moderators. The first one was Monica who actually sued them for it (libel or defamation or something, basically they said she was being transphobic or something when she wasn’t) and they settled. Around that time, possibly before, they removed a site from their Hot Network Questions because of a single tweet. Combine that with them constantly ignoring Stack Exchange Meta (where users and admins are meant to interact for the better of the site and discuss the sites themselves). Moderators were understandably furious when their posts get ignored in the place where Stack Exchange says they’re meant to communicate when a random tweet gets more attention and immediate action.
More recently they’ve given different instructions privately to moderators than what they said publicly with regards to suspected AI content.
I mean, combine all of that with how hostile the users of the site are. Accusing you of not searching before posting and marking your question as a duplicate because they think it is and refusing to listen to why you say it isn’t.
I’m sure they are bad, because general corporation and enshittification cycle, but when someone consistently mentions, “a single tweet” or something like that that they represent as purely innocuous (but without any explanation or link to source), gets my suspicious radar WAY up…
Your suspicion makes sense, let me provide some context.
(Quick aside for the unaware, not necessarily Snapz, Stack Exchange (SE) is the company and family of sites behind Stack Overflow. Stack Overflow is the biggest and was the first and that’s why it doesn’t have the same “Blah Exchange” branding.)
I think this answer on SE Meta describes the Tweets the best. I can’t find good archived links to the tweets and they seem to be deleted now. This answer has screenshots and quotes them. This answer is not the first thing that happens in chronological order but it is the best thing I’ve found with quotes of the tweets. So just go here to see what the tweets were. I guess it was actually about three and not just a single one like I remembered. Summary here,
Someone then retweeted that,
This question on Interpersonal Skills (IPS) Meta is (as far as I can find) when the community at large first found out about what happened. Then later there was this question on SE Meta (which the earlier answer is in response to). Both of these posts have most of the context.
Feel free to look over as much as you want, I’ll just post some of the highlights proving the points I was talking about.
From the IPS Meta question, in this answer
This comment explains the community’s feeling very well I believe.
Also this
From the SE Meta question, this answer
Edit: Make individual links as bullet points in one of the quotes since Lemmy UI does not make it clear it is three links.
Edit 2: Add summary of the tweets so more context is on this post.
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
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
It’s too much to attribute to any one effect. 50% is a lot for a website of this size (don’t forget that Lemmy exploded from a migration of <5% Reddit usershare). Let’s KISS by attributing likely causes in order of magnitude:
ChatGPT came out after the beginning of the trend in the charts. That falsifies the first 2 points of the hypothesis. The strike happened a month ago so that’a gone too. 4, 5 and 6 do not appear as abrupt processes even if we assume they’re true so they likely don’t explain it. There must be something else that’s happened that could cause such a large and abrupt change before any of the above happened. I bet on a change in the major source of traffic - Google.
but github copilot came out right around that time…
You’ve assumed that I want to explain the root cause of the initial decline. This is not the case. Historically, SO has seen several periods of decline. What I’m actually addressing is the question of why the decline has not stopped, because the sustained nature of this decline is what makes it unusual. If you look at the various charts, you can see a brief rally which gets cut off in late Winter 2022 – this lines up rather nicely with the timing of ChatGPT’s release, I feel.
Let’s ignore that. Tell me more about your Google angle: what’s the basis of your hypothesis?
I’m not who you were speaking to, but back when I used to read it occasionally, the stack overflow blog repeatedly mentioned that the vast majority of its traffic comes from Google. If the vast majority of your traffic comes from Google and then your traffic quantity changes dramatically, it’s reasonable to look to the source of your traffic.
Thank you for doing my work for me. It’s just Occam’s razor.