4

Prior to a few weeks ago, when you

put stuff in spoiler markdown,

you could see it on the /questions page and in the chat blurb. I see that this has been fixed recently, and wanted to read the meta question that caused this. However, the question that caused the change could be on any meta.SE site. How can I go about tracking it down?

2

There is a List of feature changes to Stack Exchange. If the change is recorded, there's often a link to the official answer to the feature request or bug report that caused it. If there is one, that is; developers also change things of their own initiative and not every change is announced. The list is community-maintained (with the help of the Stack Exchange Community Team), so not all changes show up there.

In this case, we have a bug report here on SF&F Meta, which was declined back then. There's also a bug report on the main meta, which has an answer from the community team.

  • Thanks, that shows it was fixed back in November, and is a handy resource going forward for people curious about SE site changes. So it gets the check. – user1027 Jan 20 '12 at 17:39
1

The fixes to the spoiler markup where initiated by the planned murder of the spoiler tag on Gaming.SE. The spoiler tag was used to allow users to ignore it and thereby avoid spoilers, when the tag was removed it was argued that those users could no longer avoid the spoilers in the question summary. Grace Note forwarded that concern to the developers and it was fixed before the spoiler tag was completely deleted.

Here is the meta post that talks about the actual fixes.

0

You can use stackexchange.com to filter by tag across all sites (searching across all the sites just goes to Google). I subscribe to the list of questions across all the meta sites and this gives a vast amount of noise and a small amount of signal showing changes that might impact this site.

(There was enough noise that I missed this particular question, although I certainly noticed when the spoiler text started being excluded from the RSS feeds, since it's just a plain exclude, not marked in any way - so questions read very oddly).

It doesn't show everything (e.g. anything that's developer initiated rather than user initiated), but it covers many more minor changes than the list of feature changes.

The way meta is handled is one of the most broken parts of StackExchange IMO. This is good, because it means it's likely to be fixed at some point.

You must log in to answer this question.