Haste Makes Waste: An Empirical Study of Fast Answers in Stack Overflow

Abstract

Modern programming question answer (QA) sites such as Stack Overflow (SO) employ gamified mechanisms to stimulate volunteers' contributions. To maximize the chances of winning gamification rewards such as reputation and badges, a portion of users race to post answers as quickly as possible (i.e., fast answers or FAs), which makes SO the fastest QA site; however, this behavior may affect the contribution quality as well. In this paper, we report on a large-scale, mixed-methods empirical study of the gamification-influenced FA phenomenon in SO. We first quantitatively investigate the popularity of the phenomenon and user behaviors regarding FAs. Then, we study the quality of FAs by using regression modeling and qualitatively analyzing 300 instances of FAs. Our main findings reveal that more than 70% and 90% of FAs are not edited by the answerers and other users, respectively, and that later incoming answers have lower chances of being voted on and accepted. Notably, we find that the answer length, code snippets length, and readability of FAs are significantly lower than those of non-fast answers. Although FAs have higher crowd assessment scores, they have no relationship with acceptance from the perspective of asker assessment, and a considerable portion of FAs solve the problem by interacting with the asker in the comments. These results help us better understand the effects of reward-based gamification on crowdsourced software engineering communitites and provide implications for designers of gamified systems.