Why is the Stack Overflow community so aggressive about question criteria? [closed]

Why such "aggressive criteria?"

The most powerful feature of the site is the ability ask and answer questions from day one, anonymously and without reputation.

The "price" you pay for that is super vigilant moderation by the community.

The site's only criteria for a valid question -- "Programming questions that can be answered" -- covers a large range of topics. The only way to keep such a large user base of from falling into chaos is to cast a wide circle but keep well-defined edges. Posts simply cannot solicit or devolve into long diatribes, extended discussions, or religious platform wars; otherwise, the entire system will break down.

But to provide that level of no-barrier, no-friction access, the community is asked to self-moderate the site to keep it focused and on-track. As your experience with the site grows, so does your abilities and responsibilities to moderate the site.

Through experience with the site, you learn why Stack Overflow has been so successful in the past. Then you work very vigilantly to keep it that way for the future.

That is why the Stack Overflow commmunity is so aggressive about question criteria.

Closing questions is not, in itself, impolite. It's simply operating within the bounds of the system. For a new person, I'd probably also leave a polite comment explaining how the system works. Leaving rude comments, especially for new users, on questions should be flagged for moderator attention. Unless the OP has a history of rudeness, disregard for the system, or otherwise abusive behavior I don't see any reason for rude behavior on the part of answerers or commentors. Engage in abusive behavior, such as asking lots of dubious questions, though, and people may legitimately respond in kind.

Please also see: Could we please be a bit nicer to new users?

Things were much more laid back in the beginning when questions were not so plentiful. Now that SO is so large, moderators and high rep users have been much more strict. This is to help keep SO's array of information clean and resourceful for future readers and google searchers. An information resource is a primary goal of SO and related sites. Limits have been put in place that help accomplish this goal.

You can always comment about issues with moderators decisions and 3k+ users can vote to re-open a question (5 votes needed). So if it gets closed, maybe ask for some pointers on how to make it a better question. Closed questions can be reversed if enough people feel it is worthy. Remember to not get discouraged by closed questions. It is the system in play.

The whole idea of Stack Overflow is to have a high-quality narrow focus. Keeping it as pure as possible is crucial to keeping it high value instead of becoming Yahoo Answers.

By request:

I'll address this part of your question:

I don't understand how these questions fit the criteria and how my question does not.

It comes back to the same thing your financial adviser tells you:
"Past results do not guarantee future performance."

Some of those questions perhaps should be closed, but mainly it comes down to the mood of the community at the time you post it: who's online, how much off-topic stuff have they seen lately, do they have enough rep to vote to close, etc.

Stack Overflow is designed so that a certain very small amount of off-topic questions can make it through the community-driven filter. The community does need some of this content from time to time. It's basically like winning the lottery; there's even a prize, as a good off-topic question can earn you a gold badge or two. Continuing the lottery analogy: you're odds aren't much better, and the smart decision is to just not play. Whining about "losing" your off-topic question won't help you any more than whining about losing the lottery would.

The one consolation I can give you is that the process isn't over yet. The question is still out there, and those with enough reputation points can see it or vote to re-open it. If you can convince a few high-rep users to vote to open the question, it will be opened. But it's an uphill battle.

I have had a consistently very bad experience on Stack Overflow for about three years now. In my experience, moderation is not simply "super vigilant" and aiming at high quality content, as the other answers claim, but especially high rep users are often aggressively rude and disparaging.

I was one of the highest rep users on two other SE sites, but the endlessly repeating ignorance of newbie users was irritating me so much, that I found myself making snarky comments instead of giving helpful answers. I decided to close both accounts and leave those communities, because I realized that I needed to get out of my dysfunctional internet habits – using SE out of boredom and to vent the frustration from my job and private life, instead of taking care of those problems.

From my own experience, I would recommend that those SO users that find themselves irritated to the point of becoming aggressive, turn off their computers, leave their reclusion, and work on their real life social skills. It is really illuminating to interact face to face for a change.

No question is too newbie, but many are too vague. I've found myself linking an awful lot to How to ask Questions the Smart Way.

I wish this link was on the "Ask a Question" page, especially for low-rep posters.

For what it's worth, I understand how you feel. I'm not a noob to programming - since I was 8, worked at Microsoft for 3 years and am 33 now - but we're all noobs to something at some point.

User Random asked for an example, so here's my personal encounter with the very worst kind of person:

Single HTML anchor tag actually renders TWICE! Screenshot

It seems to me that Stack Overflow works, but a side effect of the system is that with the reward and ranking structure so central, it tends to amplify some of our less desirable human qualities and fosters a class system, replete with the full range of personalities within.