2

I understand that titles should be meaningful, and I admit that this just becomes a problem if something draws as much attention as its the case with GoT.

But still... I can't be quite sure as I haven't watched the season final yet, but I feel like the HNQ here just spoiled me with a compact summary of that episode.

enter image description here

I came up with this a few times already, I know. And I'm aware of the options to just exclude the HNQs.

But still, not everyone is willing to dive into meta for solving his problem, and getting a HNQ-list as I just did, just hopping over the topics and its already too late to lookup any solution.

My idea to solve this problem1 in case this is technically doable, using a tag like and making that tag be negatively considered in the HNQ scoring so that each site could provide at most 1 post with that tag to the HNQ at a time, if not even banning it or giving its title a spoiler protection in the HNQ.

EDIT: Note that this post actually mentioned from the very first beginning that hiding the HNQ is not considered a solution. Now just hopping back in here to see it was voted to be a duplicate of how to turn off the HNQ's feels a bit cheeky. Sorry for having to explicitly state this in an edit block. But having stated it in the text itself apparently got ignored.


1And it is a problem. Yeah each of the titles for them self isn't that spoily2, but HNQ as demonstrated makes that moot

2Well in my honest opinion, 3 of them are spoilers on their own

  • 8
    Argh. Titles which aren't spoilery in themselves but their combination is spoilery ... that's a tricky one, and well-nigh impossible to be sure of avoiding. – Rand al'Thor Aug 30 '17 at 12:46
  • yeah, but I think at least the ways to avoid them could be improved. I tried to get to season 7 in time, but just started it yesterday and just from the HNQ titles over the last weeks, I had a few surprises, but the general plot developed exactly as I was expecting it. Its not that I want to blame someone, but I think this should somehow be improved. – Zaibis Aug 30 '17 at 12:52
  • 4
    Every question has every right to be in the HNQ, you're denying the right of a question to get the attention it deserves. The only reason this is a perceived issue is because people are 1: Unable to be mature about spoilers. If you're on the internet expect to be spoiled. Our community serves the thousands, we can't make every individual happy. 2: Because our site has what I call "Spoilerbility", content with the ability to spoil. Seeing something on a programming site beyond my knowledge is "cool". Seeing something on an SFF site beyond my knowledge is a "spoiler". – Edlothiad Aug 30 '17 at 13:02
  • 1
    We have rules to hiding spoilers, and we try to make it as possible for everyone to be safe from them. In the case of some of these, titles are often overlooked as most of them are edited by users who have seen the episode, but we can't make it so that a random selection of HNQ questions in your sidebar doesn't spoil an episode for you. – Edlothiad Aug 30 '17 at 13:03
  • 4
    i.stack.imgur.com/rAQdc.jpg – Valorum Aug 30 '17 at 13:15
  • 2
    @Valorum I'd say it's not a duplicate, since this is a proposal to exclude certain tags from the HNQs. Although I'm sure there's something on meta meta about that. – SQB Aug 30 '17 at 13:18
  • 3
    Oh dear, a spoiling title and a non-spoiling title, together, have spoiled your experience? This is already covered; the spoiling title, Starks figuring Littlefinger out, is already against current standards. – Slacklord the Terrible Aug 30 '17 at 15:37
  • 1
    @Möoz: Why it is a duplicate? I clearly am supposing here a way to improve the handling, and not asking for assistance. – Zaibis Aug 31 '17 at 9:26
  • 2
    similar one from sister site, answer might help here too – Ankur Rathee Aug 31 '17 at 13:44
  • 1
    @AegonTargaryen: I feel like no one even reads the part after the picture. I even state there that its not a option for me to disable the HNQ and therefor would like to propose a feature, while this is also taged as feature request. and isntead people mark this as dup of my own posts or hint me that answers to posts I did may apply. – Zaibis Sep 1 '17 at 7:11
  • 1
    @AegonTargaryen: Then please put the why into an answer instead of assuming something that clearly isn't stated. As I don't see why that would be damaging. – Zaibis Sep 1 '17 at 8:44
  • 1
    @Zaibis and who is going to add "recent-release" tag to every new question and then removing them after certain time? And how new is new? – Ankur Rathee Sep 1 '17 at 9:37
  • 2
    @Zaibis, we have a time frame for "so and so" it's never. Nothing is ever old enough to be a spoiler. Some things just enter common knowledge. I.e, "Luke I am your father", technically a spoiler, but not hidden because of how well it's known. Back to your point about disagreeing with the tags. Us as regulars of our Stack want our content (or sometimes not) on the HNQ because it draws attention to the stack, provides us with new users and provides rep (I guess). You denying our site space on the HNQ because we have content that is spoilery might be ok to you, but not to us. – Edlothiad Sep 1 '17 at 14:36
  • 1
    By the way, why is this actually a duplicate? OP clearly mentions that turning HNQ off is not an acceptable goal. So why this is a duplicate of "Is there a way to turn off HNQ?" A bit rediciouless I must say... – Zaibis Jan 18 at 12:29
  • 1
    @Zaibis - It's not a duplicate. It's a terrible idea, but it's not a dupe – Valorum Jan 19 at 11:39
4

What you're proposing is a bad idea on multiple levels and extensively open to abuse.

1) This requires users to decide, presumably for themselves, what constitutes a "new release". You might wish to note that we've had complaints in the past about questions about books that were released decades ago spoiling TV shows and films including Lord of the Rings (1954) and 1984 (1948).

2) Even if we decide that it's a good idea, it still requires a technical solution from SE that they've been reluctant to perform. Blocking HNQ by tag has been discussed previously on Meta:SE with the upshot being that while SE are happy to exclude entire sites, they're not happy to exclude single tags due to the costs involved and the network overhead.

3) Finally, and to my mind most critically, this gives users a brand new ability to knock any question they don't like off of the HNQ simply by adding a special tag. While we're usually pretty quick about noticing mis-tagging, it could theoretically be hours before that question gets edited back to normalcy during which time its 'hotness' may have declined.

  • 1
    It does absolutely nothing but replace one manual, subjective, user-driven task (editing spoilers out of titles) with another manual, subjective, user-driven task (adding a specific tag). Only that the proposed idea also doesn't help the site itself on top of that. – TARS Jan 19 at 15:40
  • @TARS "It does absolutely nothing" That's nonsense. If you had read the OP, you would see that in that case it would make a major difference. But I accepted this answer for the 3rd point. As I had not considered that one back then. And I agree, that this would make in fact things difficult, even if there was a technical solution for it. – Zaibis Jan 21 at 5:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .