Skip to main content
Writing

Return to Answer

replaced http://writers.stackexchange.com/ with https://writers.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

As I see it, there are three basic problems for Writers in the SE framework that limit its appeal and have nothing to do with voting, or only tangentially.

  1. The SO paradigm, on which all other SE sites is based on the idea that there are small reusable solutions to specific coding problem. I have used it hundreds of times for exactly that purpose. But writing does not work the same way. There simply are not millions of small reusable solutions to writing problems. And for this reason, there is no motivation for successful working writers to frequent the site the way successful working programmers frequent SO.

  2. Writing is very hard to test. The only real test is that lots of people put down money to buy your book. Even then, that does not mean that everything you did in the book is good or should be emulated. Answers on Writers are simply not testable. At best, you can offer counter examples to assertions. The result it that very often voting here is a popularity contest between two untestable assertions.

  3. Writing and storytelling are different things. Storytelling is something that works out over a large scope -- far too large for a SE question, even if we allowed critiquing. Writing questions -- questions about how to form a pleasing and effective sentence are more the right scale, but their answers are not likely to be useful to anyone other than the person who asks them (which is why they are off topic here).

I came to Writers because I wanted to study the SE model. As a technical writer, I was fascinated by the rise of the SO model as a dominant form of technical communication, to the point where it is often a preferred source over official documentation. I wanted to participate in the model myself, but it was clear to me that I was not a sufficiently expert programmer to make much of contribution to SE, and thus to experience the model in action for myself. So I joined Writers, as well as English Language Learners and English Language and Usage. I found the latter two to be dominated by fierce grammarians, which I am not, so I have put most of my energy into Writers.

But what I have learned over the last year here is that the model does not really fit. We really see the same questions coming up again and again, simply because there are not that many general writing questions that are applicable to many. Writing consists of some general principles and an infinity of specific cases. Most of the worthwhile answers here are telling people which general principles apply to what they are struggling with. @what's brilliant http://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/writing-a-novel-can-i-do-this-or-thathttps://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/writing-a-novel-can-i-do-this-or-that could be repeated for a couple of dozen issues and incorporate most of the site.

This does not mean I don't think Writers should not exist, or that I am not going to continue on it (that depends on how long I stay interested). It just means I have a hard time imagining what the growth model is for it.

As I see it, there are three basic problems for Writers in the SE framework that limit its appeal and have nothing to do with voting, or only tangentially.

  1. The SO paradigm, on which all other SE sites is based on the idea that there are small reusable solutions to specific coding problem. I have used it hundreds of times for exactly that purpose. But writing does not work the same way. There simply are not millions of small reusable solutions to writing problems. And for this reason, there is no motivation for successful working writers to frequent the site the way successful working programmers frequent SO.

  2. Writing is very hard to test. The only real test is that lots of people put down money to buy your book. Even then, that does not mean that everything you did in the book is good or should be emulated. Answers on Writers are simply not testable. At best, you can offer counter examples to assertions. The result it that very often voting here is a popularity contest between two untestable assertions.

  3. Writing and storytelling are different things. Storytelling is something that works out over a large scope -- far too large for a SE question, even if we allowed critiquing. Writing questions -- questions about how to form a pleasing and effective sentence are more the right scale, but their answers are not likely to be useful to anyone other than the person who asks them (which is why they are off topic here).

I came to Writers because I wanted to study the SE model. As a technical writer, I was fascinated by the rise of the SO model as a dominant form of technical communication, to the point where it is often a preferred source over official documentation. I wanted to participate in the model myself, but it was clear to me that I was not a sufficiently expert programmer to make much of contribution to SE, and thus to experience the model in action for myself. So I joined Writers, as well as English Language Learners and English Language and Usage. I found the latter two to be dominated by fierce grammarians, which I am not, so I have put most of my energy into Writers.

But what I have learned over the last year here is that the model does not really fit. We really see the same questions coming up again and again, simply because there are not that many general writing questions that are applicable to many. Writing consists of some general principles and an infinity of specific cases. Most of the worthwhile answers here are telling people which general principles apply to what they are struggling with. @what's brilliant http://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/writing-a-novel-can-i-do-this-or-that could be repeated for a couple of dozen issues and incorporate most of the site.

This does not mean I don't think Writers should not exist, or that I am not going to continue on it (that depends on how long I stay interested). It just means I have a hard time imagining what the growth model is for it.

As I see it, there are three basic problems for Writers in the SE framework that limit its appeal and have nothing to do with voting, or only tangentially.

  1. The SO paradigm, on which all other SE sites is based on the idea that there are small reusable solutions to specific coding problem. I have used it hundreds of times for exactly that purpose. But writing does not work the same way. There simply are not millions of small reusable solutions to writing problems. And for this reason, there is no motivation for successful working writers to frequent the site the way successful working programmers frequent SO.

  2. Writing is very hard to test. The only real test is that lots of people put down money to buy your book. Even then, that does not mean that everything you did in the book is good or should be emulated. Answers on Writers are simply not testable. At best, you can offer counter examples to assertions. The result it that very often voting here is a popularity contest between two untestable assertions.

  3. Writing and storytelling are different things. Storytelling is something that works out over a large scope -- far too large for a SE question, even if we allowed critiquing. Writing questions -- questions about how to form a pleasing and effective sentence are more the right scale, but their answers are not likely to be useful to anyone other than the person who asks them (which is why they are off topic here).

I came to Writers because I wanted to study the SE model. As a technical writer, I was fascinated by the rise of the SO model as a dominant form of technical communication, to the point where it is often a preferred source over official documentation. I wanted to participate in the model myself, but it was clear to me that I was not a sufficiently expert programmer to make much of contribution to SE, and thus to experience the model in action for myself. So I joined Writers, as well as English Language Learners and English Language and Usage. I found the latter two to be dominated by fierce grammarians, which I am not, so I have put most of my energy into Writers.

But what I have learned over the last year here is that the model does not really fit. We really see the same questions coming up again and again, simply because there are not that many general writing questions that are applicable to many. Writing consists of some general principles and an infinity of specific cases. Most of the worthwhile answers here are telling people which general principles apply to what they are struggling with. @what's brilliant https://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/writing-a-novel-can-i-do-this-or-that could be repeated for a couple of dozen issues and incorporate most of the site.

This does not mean I don't think Writers should not exist, or that I am not going to continue on it (that depends on how long I stay interested). It just means I have a hard time imagining what the growth model is for it.

Source Link
user16226
user16226

As I see it, there are three basic problems for Writers in the SE framework that limit its appeal and have nothing to do with voting, or only tangentially.

  1. The SO paradigm, on which all other SE sites is based on the idea that there are small reusable solutions to specific coding problem. I have used it hundreds of times for exactly that purpose. But writing does not work the same way. There simply are not millions of small reusable solutions to writing problems. And for this reason, there is no motivation for successful working writers to frequent the site the way successful working programmers frequent SO.

  2. Writing is very hard to test. The only real test is that lots of people put down money to buy your book. Even then, that does not mean that everything you did in the book is good or should be emulated. Answers on Writers are simply not testable. At best, you can offer counter examples to assertions. The result it that very often voting here is a popularity contest between two untestable assertions.

  3. Writing and storytelling are different things. Storytelling is something that works out over a large scope -- far too large for a SE question, even if we allowed critiquing. Writing questions -- questions about how to form a pleasing and effective sentence are more the right scale, but their answers are not likely to be useful to anyone other than the person who asks them (which is why they are off topic here).

I came to Writers because I wanted to study the SE model. As a technical writer, I was fascinated by the rise of the SO model as a dominant form of technical communication, to the point where it is often a preferred source over official documentation. I wanted to participate in the model myself, but it was clear to me that I was not a sufficiently expert programmer to make much of contribution to SE, and thus to experience the model in action for myself. So I joined Writers, as well as English Language Learners and English Language and Usage. I found the latter two to be dominated by fierce grammarians, which I am not, so I have put most of my energy into Writers.

But what I have learned over the last year here is that the model does not really fit. We really see the same questions coming up again and again, simply because there are not that many general writing questions that are applicable to many. Writing consists of some general principles and an infinity of specific cases. Most of the worthwhile answers here are telling people which general principles apply to what they are struggling with. @what's brilliant http://writers.stackexchange.com/questions/25819/writing-a-novel-can-i-do-this-or-that could be repeated for a couple of dozen issues and incorporate most of the site.

This does not mean I don't think Writers should not exist, or that I am not going to continue on it (that depends on how long I stay interested). It just means I have a hard time imagining what the growth model is for it.