I find it to be a great resource if someone has already answered your question, especially if I find it via Google. As for asking questions, it's a bit off-putting to be immediately downvoted without explanation, and to not get a single answer.
Point is, it's good resource to free-ride but not actively participate.
That's basically the point of the site. I think SO's owners are ok with this trade off.
FWIW it wasn't always like this. I have a lot of points on SO mostly acquired about 5 years ago. Back then SO was a much friendlier, and much more interesting place to participate in. I haven't actively participated in about 3 years or so.
It's more that it turns out that asking questions is hard.
Anyone who has had to work with others in tech knows the kind of crap you get. They don't give you the stack trace, they say 'I get an error' without giving the error message, they just say 'it doesn't work', it's not clear what they want, they post a screenshot of half a stack trace, etc...
Again, it's a constant trade off where you are balancing the asker's needs with the thousand people who find this via Google, and the people answering the question.
Complying and taking down the legitimate links should force WB to properly review their requests.
This case is kind of funny, but something similar started happening when banks started automating foreclosures. People who were up to date on their mortgages were getting evicted from exactly the same kind of negligence WB is exhibiting here.
In his book 'Bailout', the Special Inspector General of TARP, Neil Barofsky, lists a multitude of reasons as to why so many Americans were wrongly foreclosed on by mortgage servicers.
At the top of the list was fraud and lies by the mortgage servicers, many of whom lied to homeowners and convinced them to skip payments on their homes in the hopes of qualifying for a modification, so that they could rack up late fees and then foreclose.
How does one get evicted due to a computer error? Wouldn't a rather simple court case be able to determine that X amount was being paid to be bank every month?
Banks were signing off on the erroneous foreclosures without properly reviewing them. And, if Matt Taibbi is to believed, the courts weren't of much help to the victims of fraudulent forclosures. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts...