Are Comments on Stack Overflow Well Organized for Easy Retrieval by Developers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Stack Overflow answers have associated informative comments that can strengthen them and assist developers. A prior study found that comments can provide additional information to point out issues in their associated answer, such as the obsolescence of an answer. By showing more informative comments (e.g., the ones with higher scores) and hiding less informative ones, developers can more effectively retrieve information from the comments that are associated with an answer. Currently, Stack Overflow prioritizes the display of comments, and, as a result, 4.4 million comments (possibly including informative comments) are hidden by default from developers. In this study, we investigate whether this mechanism effectively organizes informative comments. We find that (1) the current comment organization mechanism does not work well due to the large amount of tie-scored comments (e.g., 87% of the comments have 0-score) and (2) in 97.3% of answers with hidden comments, at least one comment that is possibly informative is hidden while another comment with the same score is shown (i.e., unfairly hidden comments). The longest unfairly hidden comment is more likely to be informative than the shortest one. Our findings highlight that Stack Overflow should consider adjusting the comment organization mechanism to help developers effectively retrieve informative comments. Furthermore, we build a classifier that can effectively distinguish informative comments from uninformative comments. We also evaluate two alternative comment organization mechanisms (i.e., the Length mechanism and the Random mechanism) based on text similarity and the prediction of our classifier.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".