llm/5daab79e-f20f-476c-ab87-82c7ff678250/batch-9-6e9135ff-63b3-4908-b38b-f1583b7945a8-input.json
You are a comment classifier. Given a list of topics and a batch of comments, assign each comment to up to 3 of the most relevant topics.
TOPICS (use these 1-based indices):
1. Toxic moderation culture
2. LLMs replacing Stack Overflow
3. Duplicate question closures
4. Community hostility toward newcomers
5. Question quality standards
6. Knowledge base vs help forum debate
7. Future of LLM training data
8. Reddit and Discord as alternatives
9. Gamification and reputation systems
10. Outdated answers problem
11. SO sale to private equity
12. Google search integration decline
13. Expert knowledge preservation
14. GitHub Discussions adoption
15. Elitist gatekeeping behavior
16. Human interaction loss
17. Question saturation theory
18. Moderator power dynamics
19. AI-generated content concerns
20. Community decline timeline
COMMENTS TO CLASSIFY:
[
{
"id": "46483771",
"text": "Show me one that was closed by a moderator. Just one. And I will tell you exactly what happened."
}
,
{
"id": "46484538",
"text": "I think the poster you're responding to is correct. I've seen it many times myself. And just so you know, asking for a piece of data and not getting it is not going to be proof that you're right."
}
,
{
"id": "46486253",
"text": "No, but it will show, as someone else already responded, that they don't understand SO systems and processes at all. The question they linked [0] was closed by the asker themselves. It's literally one of the comments [1] on the question. Most questions aren't even closed by moderators, not even by user voting, but by the askers themselves [2], which can be seen on the table as community user. The community user gets attributed of all automated actions and whenever the user agrees with closure of their own question [3]. (The same user also gets attributed of bunch of other stuff [4]\n\nThis shows that critics of Stack Overflow don't understand how Stack Overflow works and start assigning things that SO users see normal and expected to some kind of malice or cabal. Now, if you learned how it works, and how long it has been working this way, you will see that cases of abuses are not only rare, they usually get resolved once they are known.\n\n[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32711321/"
}
,
{
"id": "46485048",
"text": "I logged into my old account and found an old question I asked:\n\nhttps://stackoverflow.com/questions/32711321/setting-element..."
}
,
{
"id": "46485197",
"text": "The linked answer seems like a valid guess for a relevant dupe. Like I said in my comment, \"I understand a few eggs got cracked along the way to making this omelette\" but I really don't think this was as widespread of a problem as people are making it out to be.\n\nThey also have Meta Stack Overflow to appeal if you think your question was unfairly marked as a dupe. From what I read, it seems that most mods back off readily"
}
,
{
"id": "46486053",
"text": "> From what I read, it seems that most mods back off readily\n\nIf a reasonable, policy-aware argument is presented, yes. In my experience, though, the large majority of requests are based in irrelevant differences, and OP often comes across and fundamentally opposed to the idea of marking duplicates at all."
}
,
{
"id": "46486043",
"text": "That was not closed by a moderator. In fact, it was closed automatically by the system, when you agreed that the question was a duplicate. Because of my privilege level I can see that information in the close dialog:\n\n> A community member has associated this post with a similar question. If you believe that the duplicate closure is incorrect, submit an edit to the question to clarify the difference and recommend the question be reopened.\n\n> Closed 10 years ago by paradite, CommunityBot.\n\n> (List of close voters is only viewable by users with the close/reopen votes privilege)\n\n... Actually, your reputation should be sufficient to show you that, too.\n\nAnyway, it seems to me that the linked duplicate does answer the question. You asked why the unit-less value \"stopped working\", which presumably means that it was interpreted by newer browsers as having a different unit from what you intended; the linked duplicate is asking for the rules that determine the implicit unit when none is specifi"
}
,
{
"id": "46485650",
"text": "https://stackoverflow.com/questions/79530539/how-is-an-ssh-c...\n\nQuestion: How is an SSH certificate added using the SSH agent protocol?\n\n> Closed. This question is seeking recommendations for software libraries, tutorials, tools, books, or other off-site resources"
}
,
{
"id": "46486296",
"text": "> The community is reviewing whether to reopen this question as of 36 mins ago.\n\nAsking where in the documentation is something is always tricky, specially because it usually means \"I didn't read the documentation clearly\". Also...\n\nYou went and deleted the question immediately after it was closed only to undelete it 2 hours ago (as the moment of writing)[0]. After it was closed, you had an opportunity to edit the question to have it looked at again but choose instead to delete it so that nobody will go hunting for that (once deleted, we presume that it was for a good reason). So, yeah, obviously you will be able to show that as example because you didn't give anyone the opportunity to look at it again .\n\n[0]: https://stackoverflow.com/posts/79530539/timeline"
}
,
{
"id": "46490485",
"text": "> Asking where in the documentation is something is always tricky, specially because it usually means \"I didn't read the documentation clearly\". Also...\n\nIt’s not asking for documentation, it’s quite literally asking how to do something. There are links to documentation to prove that I read all the documentation I could (to preemptively ward off the question getting closed).\n\nYes, I deleted it because I solved the question myself, no need for it to exist as a closed question. How can I “Edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations. You can edit the question or post a new one.”? The answer is quite literally facts (the message format) and citations which is what I was hoping to get from someone else answering.\n\nI undeleted it so I could give this example.\n\n> So, yeah, obviously you will be able to show that as example because you didn't give anyone the opportunity to look at it again.\n\nWhat would looking at it again do? I had no idea it was being voted to close in th"
}
,
{
"id": "46485138",
"text": "You had me looking through my history. Here is an example from 12 years ago: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15626760/does-an-idle-my...\n\nGranted when I look at that question today, it doesn't make much sense. But 12 years-back me didn't know much better. Let's just say the community was quite hostile to people trying to figure stuff out and learn."
}
,
{
"id": "46485203",
"text": "Yeah I can definitely see why this might feel hostile to a newbie. But SO explicitly intended to highlight really good well-formed and specific questions. Stuff that other people would be asking and stuff that wouldn't meander too much. It's simply not meant to be a forum for these kinds of questions. I think Reddit would've been a better fit for you"
}
,
{
"id": "46486935",
"text": "That is a specific question.\n\nAny more specific and I suspect it would have been closed as too specific to their environment / setup instead."
}
,
{
"id": "46485364",
"text": "I don't really agree. Programming on our endless tech stack is meandering. And people come in all shapes, forms and level of expertise. I mean, sure, it's their platform, they can do whatever with it. But as an experience developer now, I still rather prefer an open/loose platform to a one that sets me to certain very strict guidelines. Also once you had negative experiences in SoF as a beginner, would you come back later? I didn't."
}
,
{
"id": "46492437",
"text": "> Programming on our endless tech stack is meandering. And people come in all shapes, forms and level of expertise.\n\ncompletely agree\n\n> But as an experience developer now, I still rather prefer an open/loose platform to a one that sets me to certain very strict guidelines.\n\nAnd that's also fine. It's just not what I think SO was trying to be. Reddit for those types of questions, HN for broader discussions and news, and SO for well-formed questions seems like a good state of things to me. (Not sure where discord fits in that)"
}
,
{
"id": "46486068",
"text": "> Let's just say the community was quite hostile to people trying to figure stuff out and learn.\n\nI don't understand how there is supposedly any hostility on display there."
}
,
{
"id": "46483512",
"text": "I also agreed with this vision. It was meant to be more like Wikipedia rather than Reddit."
}
,
{
"id": "46482811",
"text": "Those saying that StackOverflow became toxic are absolutely correct. But we should not let that be it's legacy. It is IMO still today one of the greatest achievements in terms of open data on the internet. And it's impact on making programming accessible to a large audience cannot be understated."
}
,
{
"id": "46483541",
"text": "I once published a method for finding the closest distance between an ellipse and a point on SO: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22959698/distance-from-g...\n\nI consider it the most beautiful piece of code I've ever written and perhaps my one minor contribution to human knowledge. It uses a method I invented, is just a few lines, and converges in very few iterations.\n\nPeople used to reach out to me all the time with uses they had found for it, it was cited in a PhD and apparently lives in some collision plugin for unity. Haven't heard from anyone in a long time.\n\nIt's also my test question for LLMs, and I've yet to see my solution regurgitated. Instead they generate some variant of Newtons method, ChatGPT 5.2 gave me an LM implementation and acknowledged that Newtons method is unstable (it is, which is why I went down the rabbit hole in the first place.)\n\nToday I don't know where I would publish such a gem. It's not something I'd bother writing up in a paper, and SO was the obvious "
}
,
{
"id": "46483704",
"text": "The various admonitions to publish to a personal blog, while encouraging, don't really get at the 0xfaded's request which I'd summarize as follows:\n\nWith no one asking questions these technical questions publicly, where, how and on what public platform will technical people find the problems that need solving so they can exercise their creativity for the benefit of all?"
}
,
{
"id": "46484105",
"text": "> The various admonitions to publish to a personal blog, while encouraging, don't really get at the 0xfaded's request\n\nThey also completely missed the fact that 0xfaded did write a blog post and it’s linked in the second sentence of the SO post.\n\n> There is a relatively simple numerical method with better convergence than Newtons Method. I have a blog post about why it works http://wet-robots.ghost.io/simple-method-for-distance-to-ell..."
}
,
{
"id": "46484940",
"text": "Clearly we need something in between the fauxpen-access of journals and the wilde west of the blogosphere, probably. Why wouldn't the faded ox publish in a paper? Idk, but I guess we need things similar to those circulars that British royal society members used to send to each other...except not reserved for a club. The web should be a natural at this. But it's either centralized -> monetized -> corrupted, or decentralized -> unindexed/niche -> forgotten fringe. What can come between?"
}
,
{
"id": "46485818",
"text": "I wonder if there could be something like a Wikipedia for programming. A bit like what the book Design Patterns did in 1994, collecting everyone's useful solutions, but on a much larger scale. Everyone shares the best strategies and algorithms for everything, and updates them when new ones come about, and we finally stop reinventing the wheel for every new project.\n\nTo some extent that was Stack Overflow, and it's also GitHub, and now it's also LLMs, but not quite.\n\nMay I suggest \"PASTE\": Patterns, Algorithms, Solutions, Techniques, and Examples. \"Just copy PASTE\", they'll say."
}
,
{
"id": "46486191",
"text": "Ward Cunningham once, of all places in an Github issue [0], explained how the original C2 Wiki was seeded.\n\n> Perhaps I should explain why wiki worked.\n> I wrote a program in a weekend and then spent two hours a day for the next five years curating the content it held. For another five years a collection of people did the same work with love for what was there. But that was the end. A third cohort of curators did not appear. Content suffered.\n\nA heroic amount effort of a single person, and later the collective effort of a small group, worked in the mid-90es. I'm skeptical that it will be repeatable 30 years later. Despite this, it would be the type of place, that I'd like to visit on the web. :(\n\n[0] https://github.com/WardCunningham/remodeling/issues/51#issue..."
}
,
{
"id": "46486672",
"text": "Great idea! https://paste.voklen.com/wiki/Main_Page\nIf people start using it I'll get a proper domain name for it."
}
,
{
"id": "46486217",
"text": "An algolwiki is a great idea, but I just wanted to say I got a good chuckle from this, thanks :)\n\n> May I suggest \"PASTE\": Patterns, Algorithms, Solutions, Techniques, and Examples. \"Just copy PASTE\", they'll say."
}
,
{
"id": "46486414",
"text": "> To some extent that was Stack Overflow\n\nYup, that was always very much the plan, from the earliest days. Shame it soured a bit, but since the content is all freely reusable, maybe something can be built atop the ashes?"
}
,
{
"id": "46486581",
"text": "There is https://grokipedia.com which encourages you to suggest an article and you may submit improvements to an existing article."
}
,
{
"id": "46486808",
"text": "This is _not_ at all the same thing. Grok just ripped off Wikipedia as its base and then applied a biased spin to it. Check out the entry on Grok owner Elon Musk; it praises his accomplishments and completely omits or downplays most of his better-known controversies."
}
,
{
"id": "46487030",
"text": "And everything is “fact checked” by the Grok LLM. Which… Yeah…\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies"
}
,
{
"id": "46486439",
"text": "Yes exactly! It would need some publicity of some kind to get started but it's the best solution, certainly? And all of the tools and infrastructure already exist."
}
,
{
"id": "46486313",
"text": "There is https://www.wikifunctions.org/"
}
,
{
"id": "46486337",
"text": "> Clearly we need something in between the fauxpen-access of journals and the wilde west of the blogosphere, probably.\n\nI think GP's min-distance solution would work well as an arxiv paper that is never submitted for publication.\n\nA curated list of never-published papers, with comments by users, makes sense in this context. Not sure that arxiv itself is a good place, but something close to it in design, with user comments and response-papers could be workable.\n\nSomething like RFC, but with rich content (not plain-text) and focused on things like GP published (code techniques, tricks, etc).\n\nCould even call it \"circulars on computer programming\" or \"circulars on software engineering\", etc.\n\nPS. I ran an experiment some time back, putting something on arxiv instead of github, and had to field a few comments about \"this is not novel enough to be a paper\" and my responses were \"this is not a publishable paper, and I don't intend to submit it anywhere\". IOW, this is not a new or unique prob"
}
,
{
"id": "46486822",
"text": "There is the Journal of Open Source Software perhaps:\n\nhttps://joss.theoj.org/"
}
,
{
"id": "46485285",
"text": "You can (and always were encouraged to) ask your own questions, too.\n\nAnd there are more sites like this (see e.g. https://codidact.com — fd: moderator of the Software section). Just because something loses popularity isn't a reason to stop doing it."
}
,
{
"id": "46485484",
"text": "StackOverflow is famously obnoxious about questions badly asked, badly categorized, duplicated…\n\nIt’s actually a topic on which StackOverflow would benefit from AI A LOT.\n\nImagine StackOverflow rebrands itself as the place where you can ask the LLM and it benefits the world, whoch correctly rephrasing the question behind the scenes and creating public records for them."
}
,
{
"id": "46485900",
"text": "And famously obnoxious about rejecting questions that are properly asked, properly categorized, and not actually duplicated."
}
,
{
"id": "46486049",
"text": "SO is not obnoxious because the users are wrong!"
}
,
{
"id": "46487321",
"text": "The company tried this. It fell through immediately. So they went away, and came back with a much improved version. It also fell through immediately. Turns out, this idea is just bad: LLMs can't rephrase questions accurately, when those questions are novel, which is precisely the case that Stack Overflow needs.\n\nFor the pedantic: there were actually three attempts, all of which failed. The question title generator was positively received ( https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/388492/308065 ), but ultimately removed ( https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/424638/5223757 ) because it didn't work properly, and interfered with curation. The question formatting assistant failed obviously and catastrophically ( https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/425167/5223757 ). The new question assistant failed in much the same ways ( https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/432638/5223757 ), despite over a year of improvements, but was pushed through anyway."
}
,
{
"id": "46490144",
"text": "This is an excellent piece of information that I didn’t have. If the company with most data can’t succeed, then it seems like a really hard problem. On the side, they can understand why humans couldn’t do it either."
}
,
{
"id": "46483861",
"text": "Seriously where will we get this info anymore? I’ve depended on it for decades. No matter how obscure, I could always find a community that was talking about something I needed solved. I feel like that’s getting harder and harder every year. The balkanization of the Internet + garbage AI slop blogs overwhelming the clearly declining Google is a huge problem."
}
,
{
"id": "46485947",
"text": "My genuine impression is that communities moved from forums to discord. Maybe that's why they are harder to find"
}
,
{
"id": "46486242",
"text": "And discord is a terrible tool for knowledge collection imo. Their search is ok, but then I find myself digging through long and disjointed message threads, if replies/threading are even used at all by the participants."
}
,
{
"id": "46486626",
"text": "Not to mention, it's not indexed by search engines. It's the \"deep web\"."
}
,
{
"id": "46486635",
"text": "Yes, its a treasure hunt every single time when some project has most of their discussions on discord. It's awful imo."
}
,
{
"id": "46484493",
"text": "Keep using SO?"
}
,
{
"id": "46484523",
"text": "When I grew up shakes fist at clouds I had a half dozen totally independent forums/sites to pull on for any interest or hobby no matter how obscure. I want it back!"
}
,
{
"id": "46485252",
"text": "It's true though, and the information was so deep and specific. Plus the communities were so legitimate and you could count on certain people appearing in threads and waiting for their input. Now the best you have are subreddits or janky Facebook groups ."
}
,
{
"id": "46485764",
"text": "The discoverability, both from the outside and within is absolute trash, but the closest I find of those old forums nowadays are Discord servers."
}
,
{
"id": "46488197",
"text": "Agreed, it’s the discoverability that’s the real problem here at the end of it all. All the veterans are pulling up the drawbridges to protect their communities from trolls, greedy companies, AI scraping, etc. which means new people can’t find them. Which then means these communities eventually whither and stop being helpful resources for us all."
}
]
Return ONLY a JSON array with this exact structure (no other text):
[
{
"id": "comment_id_1",
"topics": [
1,
3,
5
]
}
,
{
"id": "comment_id_2",
"topics": [
2
]
}
,
...
]
Rules:
- Each comment can have 0 to 3 topics
- Use 1-based topic indices
- Only assign topics that are genuinely relevant to the comment
- If no topics match, use an empty array:
{
"id": "...",
"topics": []
}
50