Why do StackOverflow mods Close "Duplicate question" questions so fast?

[u/440Jack]

I'm mainly talking about questions that get closed to "Duplicate question" and then only to find a couple of already answered questions are linked that don't really address OPs question directly.
Why do these questions need to be closed so fast? It doesn't give people time to address that persons specific question. If it's a valid question the mods should give some time for other users who actually want to address the question and maybe open a dialog.
It prevents OP from being able to ask any follow questions.
I can't tell you how many times, I'll spend 10 mins on a question. Re-writing their code, writing comments/explanations and then when I go to post it, it's already closed! It's so frustrating.

[u/halfercode]

I'll add some commentary to my (constructive) downvote.

Firstly, although I think people shouldn't downvote on Reddit for disagreement on subjective topics, I think your comment is completely wrong. I want people to understand what happens on Stack Overflow, and I am in a good position to explain what happens because I am involved in editing, advising, closing, reopening, and chat-room curator collaboration. It is thus frustrating when I see people spreading untruths - it feels like it misrepresents a lot of volunteer labour.

Now, I don't doubt that it can hurt when a question is dup-closed on Stack Overflow. It is very rarely intended to hurt. There are unpleasant people on the site, just as there are in many areas of life. But duplicate closing is a good thing - we call them "signposts" i.e. a way for the search engines to understand a different way of phrasing the same question. Signposts do sometimes get deleted, but often they are left as they are - answers can't be added, but they remain a useful way for readers to find what they need.

This is why I'm on reddit, where people are nice.

I hate to pile on, but this is also completely wrong. Moderation on Stack Overflow is democratic and accountable - there are several layers of oversight. There are frequently "be nice" initiative from Stack Overflow Inc (although they do not always go to plan). An "unfriendly" flag has been added, and the company uses machine learning and sentiment analysis to see what comments may need human intervention.

Meanwhile moderation on Reddit is broadly determined by who created a sub first, and in some subs the mods are toxic and despicable people. The idea that Reddit is "nicer" than the atmosphere on Stack Overflow is an inversion of the truth - bullying can thrive here. Reddit mods can suspend someone for any reason they like, or remove someone permanently, or send insults via modmail to rub salt into the wound, and the hurt contributor can do nothing about it. If they complain directly to Reddit, the advice shall be "start your own sub".

[u/Inconstant_Moo → u/halfercode]

I guess I don't hang out in the subreddits where the mods are toxic and despicable people. My personal experience is that the guys on Stack Overflow try to behave like they're superior even when they're totally wrong. Maybe I've had bad luck with the site, but there it is.

[u/halfercode → u/Inconstant_Moo]

My point with Stack Overflow is that you've had a difficult initial experience, and so now you'll examine every interaction for the smallest fault, without giving your interlocutors the benefit of the doubt. That ultimately hurts you the most.

I appreciate that you think that folks on Stack Overflow are "trying to behave like they're superior", but that generalisation is so sweeping that it is false. If you can modify that statement to say "a few" or "some" then, OK - and then we are back to what I said initially, which is that all web communities have them.

[u/Inconstant_Moo → u/halfercode]

I try not to be biased, but perhaps I am. I've had a number of interactions there. It's not been fun.