关于堆栈溢出的重复问题能使软件开发社区受益吗?

Durham Abric, Oliver E. Clark, M. Caminiti, Keheliya Gallaba, Shane McIntosh
{"title":"关于堆栈溢出的重复问题能使软件开发社区受益吗?","authors":"Durham Abric, Oliver E. Clark, M. Caminiti, Keheliya Gallaba, Shane McIntosh","doi":"10.1109/MSR.2019.00046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Duplicate questions on Stack Overflow are questions that are flagged as being conceptually equivalent to a previously posted question. Stack Overflow suggests that duplicate questions should not be discussed by users, but rather that attention should be redirected to their previously posted counterparts. Roughly 53% of closed Stack Overflow posts are closed due to duplication. Despite their supposed overlapping content, user activity suggests duplicates may generate additional or superior answers. Approximately 9% of duplicates receive more views than their original counterparts despite being closed. In this paper, we analyze duplicate questions from two perspectives. First, we analyze the experience of those who post duplicates using activity and reputation-based heuristics. Second, we compare the content of duplicates both in terms of their questions and answers to determine the degree of similarity between each duplicate pair. Through analysis of the MSR challenge dataset, we find that although duplicate questions are more likely to be created by inexperienced users, they often receive dissimilar answers to their original counterparts. Indeed, supplementary textual analysis using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques suggests duplicate questions provide additional information about the underlying concepts being discussed. We recommend that the Stack Overflow's duplication policy be revised to account for the benefits that leaving duplicate questions open may have for the developer community.","PeriodicalId":6706,"journal":{"name":"2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)","volume":"1 1","pages":"230-234"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can Duplicate Questions on Stack Overflow Benefit the Software Development Community?\",\"authors\":\"Durham Abric, Oliver E. Clark, M. Caminiti, Keheliya Gallaba, Shane McIntosh\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/MSR.2019.00046\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Duplicate questions on Stack Overflow are questions that are flagged as being conceptually equivalent to a previously posted question. Stack Overflow suggests that duplicate questions should not be discussed by users, but rather that attention should be redirected to their previously posted counterparts. Roughly 53% of closed Stack Overflow posts are closed due to duplication. Despite their supposed overlapping content, user activity suggests duplicates may generate additional or superior answers. Approximately 9% of duplicates receive more views than their original counterparts despite being closed. In this paper, we analyze duplicate questions from two perspectives. First, we analyze the experience of those who post duplicates using activity and reputation-based heuristics. Second, we compare the content of duplicates both in terms of their questions and answers to determine the degree of similarity between each duplicate pair. Through analysis of the MSR challenge dataset, we find that although duplicate questions are more likely to be created by inexperienced users, they often receive dissimilar answers to their original counterparts. Indeed, supplementary textual analysis using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques suggests duplicate questions provide additional information about the underlying concepts being discussed. We recommend that the Stack Overflow's duplication policy be revised to account for the benefits that leaving duplicate questions open may have for the developer community.\",\"PeriodicalId\":6706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"230-234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2019.00046\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/MSR.2019.00046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

Stack Overflow上的重复问题是被标记为概念上等同于先前发布的问题的问题。Stack Overflow建议用户不应该讨论重复的问题,而是应该将注意力转移到他们之前发布的对应问题上。大约53%关闭的Stack Overflow帖子是由于重复而关闭的。尽管他们的内容被认为是重叠的,但用户活动表明,重复的内容可能会产生额外的或更好的答案。大约有9%的复制品在关闭后的浏览次数比原版还要多。在本文中,我们从两个角度来分析重复问题。首先,我们使用活动和基于声誉的启发式分析那些发布重复内容的人的经验。其次,我们根据问题和答案来比较重复的内容,以确定每个重复对之间的相似程度。通过对MSR挑战数据集的分析,我们发现虽然重复问题更有可能是由经验不足的用户创建的,但他们通常会收到与原始问题不同的答案。事实上,使用自然语言处理(NLP)技术的补充文本分析表明,重复的问题提供了关于正在讨论的潜在概念的额外信息。我们建议修改Stack Overflow的重复策略,以考虑到保留重复问题可能给开发人员社区带来的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Can Duplicate Questions on Stack Overflow Benefit the Software Development Community?
Duplicate questions on Stack Overflow are questions that are flagged as being conceptually equivalent to a previously posted question. Stack Overflow suggests that duplicate questions should not be discussed by users, but rather that attention should be redirected to their previously posted counterparts. Roughly 53% of closed Stack Overflow posts are closed due to duplication. Despite their supposed overlapping content, user activity suggests duplicates may generate additional or superior answers. Approximately 9% of duplicates receive more views than their original counterparts despite being closed. In this paper, we analyze duplicate questions from two perspectives. First, we analyze the experience of those who post duplicates using activity and reputation-based heuristics. Second, we compare the content of duplicates both in terms of their questions and answers to determine the degree of similarity between each duplicate pair. Through analysis of the MSR challenge dataset, we find that although duplicate questions are more likely to be created by inexperienced users, they often receive dissimilar answers to their original counterparts. Indeed, supplementary textual analysis using Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques suggests duplicate questions provide additional information about the underlying concepts being discussed. We recommend that the Stack Overflow's duplication policy be revised to account for the benefits that leaving duplicate questions open may have for the developer community.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
SeSaMe: A Data Set of Semantically Similar Java Methods Lessons Learned from Using a Deep Tree-Based Model for Software Defect Prediction in Practice STRAIT: A Tool for Automated Software Reliability Growth Analysis Assessing Diffusion and Perception of Test Smells in Scala Projects An Empirical History of Permission Requests and Mistakes in Open Source Android Apps
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1