It's interesting, because that immediately makes me question the QA behind the product, when I a see the web QA being poor like this. So I poked around the site, and the main picture shows "29 colours to choose from" and several of the cases have chipped paint. I guess it goes back to what my grandma used to say about girls with dirty fingernails.
This is ridiculous. I absolutely want to talk to a person when something has gone wrong. Too many systems are poorly designed, and you can get your account into an invalid state. I'm paying for a service, and part of that service should be to allow me to contact someone when their system breaks. Spending a day researching on forums is wasting my time. It isn't that I don't want to call for support, it's the company that doesn't want to pay qualified individuals to provide that support.
I'll pay for content, but the value has to be there. And in this age of click bait headlines, non researched articles of no susbstance or value, I'm not about to pay for someone's low value opinions. Sure they have value, but it's like $0.02 of value. And it's not scarce. When everyone can create content and publish, and many are willing to do it for free to create their own brand, it creates a market where ideas and words are not monetizable. I don't even mind ads, when done right. A trailer for a movie I want to see is an ad, and I'll seek it out when I want the content. But ad agencies have done this to themselves by becoming a virus on content pages.
Besides, why should I have to pay? I create and consume something far more valuable in the form of OSS. No ads, no price.
To say monetization has to be ads or paywalls is excluding hundreds of other ways to monetize content. It's lazy, and won't succeed in the information era.
Stackoverflow has been a real issue for my team. Too many of my junior developers seem to hold the information as gospel. Something I frequently am forced to reiterate is that just because a dozen idiots up vote an incorrect answer doesn't make it the best or proper way to accomplish something.
The second issue is with understanding. I hold a firm rule, never commit code that you do not fully understand. Because when it breaks, you will have no idea how to fix it. Too often I see developers copy/paste directly, and just change variable names. You aren't writing code, you're playing dev Lego.
My final issue is their draconian insistence on what they consider subjective question locking. When I'm making a technological choice, I'm looking for real world usage, and comparisons between frameworks. These questions can be asked and answered in non-subjective ways; yet even when done so, anything with the word "compare" gets locked. This would be the real value to me, as my research time is very limited, and being able to exclude frameworks and tools based on objective comparisons of feature sets or capabilities and limitations would be highly valuable to me.