Can new users not be bait-and-switched?

I'll spare you the vitriol of the Trustpilot reviews, but it ain't pretty.

Don't worry; everyone on the Meta sites is acutely aware of how SE, especially SO, is perceived off-site.

And yes, our reasons are more or less as you've understood them.

On the other hand, all this is clearly not good for sustained growth, and if another site figures out how to net untold new users they would squash us pretty quick.

Alternatively, if the issue is addressed properly it could launch SE to the stratosphere...

I am extremely doubtful on both points, for a variety of reasons.

But the main reason is that other sites are going to have an extremely difficult time "squashing" Stack Exchange, as long as we are counting Stack Overflow, on the basis of the sheer size of Stack Overflow. At least if they want to maintain an informative, quality-controlled, Q&A based format.

Stack Overflow has just recently passed 24 million undeleted questions. To put that in perspective: for every article on Wikipedia, there are more than three Stack Overflow questions. (Or at least it was like that last I checked - and Wikipedia has been "dying" for longer than Stack Overflow has).

I would also like to point out here that while "sustained growth" might be a goal of the staff, it is not necessarily relevant to having a functional, high-quality Q&A site. Arguably, a Q&A site is trying to reach a state of zero new questions and answers - because it has already answered everything it is supposed to answer. Ideally, everyone who has a question that's suitable for the site (or can form such a question based on the underlying problem), can already find that Q&A and get a high-quality answer.

In fact, 24 million is probably way more questions than Stack Overflow needs for this purpose, considering what the average question quality looks like, how much junk turns up when trying to search for a canonical, how many duplicate questions are clearly not being recognized, etc.

Full disclosure: I am saying all of this as an active member and major proponent of "another site".

With all due respect, this is a bait-and-switch. Because the tone is so very welcoming

First off: I absolutely agree with you that the messaging could be better in general. We can't do anything about it, because we don't have rights to change it. It's under the control of the company, which has a vested interest in increasing participation rates. The company, evidently, does not think that "pre-screening" new users is any better than trying to advertise to them as hard as possible and letting them be disappointed later.

That said: Nothing in your quote is incorrect, and it would be weird not to emphasize that everyone is welcome to participate for a site that is open to the public and has a user-generated content (UGC) model - especially in today's political climate.

"The best answers rise to the top" does seem intended to evoke a spirit of competition. But more to the point, there's a lot more on these tour pages that's constantly being ignored in complaints like this one. Some choice quotes for you:

we're working together to build a library of detailed answers

This is supposed to highlight the fact that questions don't exist simply for the benefit of the person asking.

We're a little bit different from other sites. Here's how:

Pretty straightforward: new users should not assume that their ideas about participation norms from other UGC sites will carry over.

This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat.

Yet we constantly receive new questions that include more information about OP than about the actual problem being asked about.

Not all questions work well in our format. Avoid questions that are primarily opinion-based, or that are likely to generate discussion rather than answers.

Questions that need improvement may be closed until someone fixes them.

Pretty straightforward, although it undersells the reality and only covers a few of the standard close reasons.

Moving on:

So a new user should be seeing things like "Anyone can ask a question, but expect flak till you're experienced!"

There are definitely more positive, constructive ways to get the point across. Saying something like this would be explicitly setting up the expectation of conflict between new and experienced users, and that dichotomy is false.

You have no idea how many people I've run into on Stack Overflow with 10+ years of experience, to whom I've had to explain basic, fundamental ideas about how the site works. In many cases I've tried repeatedly with the same user and been ignored. (Especially when it's a matter of "please don't answer questions like this; the reason they get closed is specifically to prevent you from answering; you being so quick on the draw is bad for the quality of the site" etc.) On the other hand, new users absolutely do come in and ask good questions sometimes.

Let there be a New User Area (SE Bootcamp)

Stack Overflow tried this. Interest from staff in supporting it seems to have run out, despite that as far as I'm aware it was working well.

I think one of the greatest assets of the network is that it has a higher quality standard (in that regard) than most other even somewhat comparable sites, and I assume this is what keeps most users visiting and participating—a large cause for bad user experience is that this is simply not the case for everybody.

I like how you framed your question: it is presented in a far more constructive and neutral way than many other similar questions, answers, and comments I have seen by disgruntled new users. So thank you for that.

But my reaction to your initially bad experience will be the same: inform yourself. There is already ample opportunity to do so. A big part of this is simply to look around; to read; to see how others behave, how things are done; and, perhaps ultimately most importantly, to communicate. If you don't know how something works or why something was done, ask. Nobody can fault you for that, and usually (on the sites I'm familiar with, at least) users will give constructive feedback. And, lastly, be willing to take criticism and adapt. More experienced users do usually know better (which doesn't mean they are always right).
It also always good to note that other users (including moderators) are real people, investing their time, effort, and patience voluntarily into this network.

In short: anybody can ask a question, anybody can answer, but that doesn't mean anything goes. No bait-and-switch, just stating facts.

For what it's worth, I agree that you've identified a problem. The banner (and the lack of much of anything to guide new users) creates a frustrating experience for everyone.

Pulling my comments into an answer:

There's a serious cultural gap exemplified here, even in the question itself. New users typically expect to be able to go in blind and have experienced users tell them what they need to do. Meanwhile experienced users really want new users to learn at least some of the rules by themselves before posting. It's exhausting to have to guide every single user so it really is helpful if they take on some of the work themselves. Unfortunately the site design tends to make that hard, since the rules are usually hidden away.

Of course, on the flip side, I think it would be helpful if experienced users recognized more of the frustrations of new users and tried to apply the rules consistently. Additionally, there's a limit to how much effort a new user can be expected to spend on a question, which should be kept in mind. But changing people is extremely hard, especially on the scale of Stack Overflow.

The "SE Bootcamp" you described arguably existed as the Staging Ground on SO. But it was shut down. I don't know all the details off the top of my head, and it doesn't matter. It requires development time, and nobody knows when that will happen. At this point, only extant features are worth spending time on.

There are some tools available to onboard users but they're extremely underused. I think few experienced users even know they exist, much less start discussions on setting them up. For example, the Ask modal. Admittedly, the example shown in that question is pretty terrible—speaking as a moderator on that site (English Language and Usage). I want to replace it but I've been busy with other stuff (the "flip side"—the hard task of changing how experienced users act). There are also tag warnings that can be set up, which is the only practical solution for guidance on many sites, including Stack Overflow where so much varies based on tag.

Where do we go from here? I don't really know. Someone needs to step forward and ask for changes like these.

I see that you are downvoted, but I wanted to express my appreciation for your question. I think it is helpful, constructive, and insightful.

In particular, I think you've got a good insight about the bait-and-switch. I don't think that the introductory materials do a good job of expressing the mission of the site. To be direct: We're not looking for stratospheric growth. That is not our motivation -- at least, it's not the motivation of many users who participate here. For many of us, our motivation is to build a high-quality archive of knowledge that will be useful to others in the future. That's more important to many of us than growth for its own sake.

I agree with you that I don't think the introductory materials on the website do a good job of capturing that. They do try to set a welcoming tone, which is welcome, but they don't emphasize the community's quality standards and the expectations we have for questions.

This is a sore point, that has been a point of contention between the company and some/many users who participate here. My impression -- and it's just an impression, and could be wrong -- or maybe it is a fear -- is that the company places a higher priority on growth; whereas there are a group of users on the site who place a higher priority on quality. The company controls the introductory materials. Users on the site control voting and question closure. So my impression is that the two have drifted apart a little bit, to the point where the introductory material does not perfectly align with the preferences and values of many users.

As for the solution, it's not clear how to solve this. I think your specific proposals have some merits and some challenges, and we could dive into the details, but before we do that, I think it's good to acknowledge the problem, which I think you've accurately diagnosed.

I do want to push back on a few points. We have heard from many newcomers who describe their experience as being "bullied", by "power-crazy moderators", etc. I think that reflects a lack of understanding of the values, priorities, norms, and expectations on this site. I don't think the issue is that moderators are "power-crazy". I think the issue is that they are placing a higher priority on (their understanding of) the site's mission, than on the goals/needs of the individual newcomer who posted their question.

I recognize that it can be a difficult and frustrating experience. I hope that gaining a deeper understanding of the motivation and values of others will help put your experience in a different light.