-3
$\begingroup$

could you not hire a few data scientists to answer more questions, ,in stack overflow, this rate is much much higher..

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ If anybody else is being paid to answer questions, please let me know directly, as I am missing out on my share. Otherwise put, and apart from being off-topic here, I think this question shows a misunderstanding of CV. Everyone answering is giving their time and effort voluntarily and for nothing. A low answer rate has often been discussed on Meta. In short, I think it follows mostly from those who ask questions and the kind of questions they ask. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 13 at 13:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The main aim of CV is to build up a resource of well-answered questions. That isn't necessarily maintained or enhanced by those who want to use it as a help line. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 13 at 13:03
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I participate on SO too. On what I know, the response rate is low because too many people expect that SO is a code-writing service. On mainstream languages, it can be much easier for experienced or expert programmers to see immediately what the problem is with precise questions showing explicit code fragments. Questions of the form How should I write a program? would not survive. Here questions of the form How should I analyse my data? are remarkably common. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 13 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ (My first comment above was written when this was on the main site. The question is more nearly on-topic here on Meta, although I doubt that much fruitful discussion is possible. A real underlying issue is whether the answer rate is lower than one might expect (or hope) and if so why, but many posts here address that.) $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 13 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ There are several threads about low answer rates here. The idea of paying people has to be taken to the management: not even moderators here get paid and we have no money to spend. What ideas do you have? To get a better answer rate, things that would help are: Better questions; More volunteer helpers. What incentives or ideas do you offer? Statistics is a field such that many people who use it have too little time, inclination or even ability to get much better, which affects what is asked mightily. That isn't so true of programming and certainly not true of e.g. hobbies or games. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 15 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ I've seen many comments on social media and outside SE complaining how badly people think they were treated in technical forums like ours. The desire seems to be for a site in which (1) a reply is guaranteed (2) those who answer should not criticise or patronise. I can understand why people want that, but push-back on questions is, at least here, almost always because those answering don't understand what is being asked or the question is off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 16 at 12:45
7
$\begingroup$

Neither StackOverflow.com nor CrossValidated.com hires anyone to answer the questions. Both sites rely solely on volunteers. You could ask StackExchange.com why they do not pay people for answering questions, but the likely answer would be that this would be a bad business model (how would they profit from it?).

Moreover, I'm afraid that the kind of people that you would like to answer questions for money would likely not be the same group of people you would like to answer them. If you are an expert in your field, then you can easily find a more interesting, and better paid, job than question answering on some Q&A site. On the other hand, the existence of sites like this shows that you can attract people like this to help others, but obviously, none of them would be doing this full time.

We could make many guesses why the response rate on StackOverflow.com is higher (is it?), e.g. it has more users, or it focuses on questions with reproducible examples, i.e. well-defined problems. On CrossValidated.com many of the questions are open-ended, often ambiguous, etc., but there is not much we can do about it.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Paying people to answer is not just unlikely; arguably, it would not solve the problem at all. Giving infinite patience to threads that are stalled -- or not even started -- would not do much better to get them going, or going faster. Having looked at perhaps hundreds or thousands of threads that failed here, it's my impression that most failed because the OP did not have a clear and distinct question at all. If they did, it was just Will you do my homework please? $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Apr 13 at 14:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .