# Ignoring certain users' postings

This old post on meta stackexchange contains a script that hides posts from users of your choice. There were some negative comments there and the script doesn't seem to be working anymore (maybe because of 2.0?).

Unfortunately, there are a handful of users whose very frequent posts I'd rather ignore, although they are usually not quite bad enough to warrant downvoting or voting to close, but they do clutter my front page.

My questions are, first, what is MO's opinion on such a script and, second, if someone knows how to fix it?

Edit: sorry to bump this old question but I'm still looking for an answer.

• Good question. I want to ignore uservwxyz for all $(v,w,x,y,z)$ in $\Bbb{N}^5$. Jul 27 '13 at 15:02
• Oh, this would be great. Jul 27 '13 at 15:04
• @BillJohnson So does this mean you side with those who take the natural numbers to include $0$? Jul 27 '13 at 18:18
• More seriously, I find myself sharing Felipe's wish (which I didn't on MO 1.0...) Jul 27 '13 at 18:20
• Regarding official support, this was requested on MSO with [status-deferred]. There may be official support for this in the future, but no guarantees and they're not likely to support it just because it's asked here. For a script, this Greasemonkey script may work or it may need minor modification to work here, but it should be doable by someone who knows what they're doing. Jul 27 '13 at 19:36
• Further, the search function does not seem to help in this situation: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/163428/…. Jul 27 '13 at 19:56
• (Re 0. @YemonChoi And rightly so.) Jul 27 '13 at 20:58
• (Maybe somebody could ask if 0 is a natural number on main. :-))
– user9072
Jul 27 '13 at 21:37
• @quid, this was already asked at Mathematics StackExchange: math.stackexchange.com/questions/283/is-0-a-natural-number Jul 28 '13 at 0:38
• Has anyone verified whether the linked Greasemonkey script works? Jul 29 '13 at 2:50
• @ScottMorrison I couldn't make it work. Tried both on Firefox (with Greasemonkey) and Chrome (which is what I normally use, with Tampermonkey). Jul 29 '13 at 10:29
• "Plonking" people like this was a classic feature of usenet. Usenet was dysfunctional in many ways, and is not necessarily a model that SE should emulate. If the problem is that the person is harassing you or being rude and nasty, then SE has mechanisms for dealing with that (flags), so use them. If the problem is that the person spouts nonsense, then SE has mechanisms for dealing with that as well, so use them.
– user21349
Nov 23 '18 at 18:56

I share the view by one of the moderators in the post you have linked to that providing such a tool is a bad idea.

• I agree entirely with Gil. After all, one can very easily choose to ignore MO entirely! And in any case it is not so hard to pick and choose what one wants to read. Asking to ignore people automatically sounds a tad bit elitist for my taste. Sep 30 '15 at 16:34
• Why am I allowed to filter out and not see any posts on topics on my list of ignored tags (which has 185 entries) but I cannot hide posts from a list of a dozen names? Sep 30 '15 at 18:54
• Dear Felipe, I think it is not so much about what you are allowed to do but what are the tools that the community provides. As you can see from the answer to the question that you have linked providing such a tool is considered offensive and inappropriate. meta.stackexchange.com/a/3409/306543 Oct 1 '15 at 6:55
• I don't get what is so bad about such a tool. Sorry for being obtuse. It's clearly nicer to silently ignore some users than to keep downvoting or voting to close their questions. The only argument that appeals to me is that, by downvoting and so on, I am helping the community by removing bad questions. But, as I said in my question, the cases I had in mind were borderline. Oct 1 '15 at 15:30
• Let me try. If we are talking about dozen participants then on average their postings are much less than 1% of the posting one sees entering MO. It is very easy to silently ignore them, not to open their posts, (and certainly not try to down vote or delete posts that are borderline and don't deserve this just because one does not like a particular user). So the issue is this, a member of the community is so annoyed by (otherwise, border-line) questions of another member that even seeing his or her name is hard for him to tolerate. Oct 1 '15 at 18:54
• (cont.) So the issue is this, a member of the community is so annoyed by (otherwise, border-line) questions of another member that even seeing his or her name is hard for him to tolerate. This seems unreasonable, and as you can see from the link you yourself gave some members find it offensive. This is the reason why the community does not want to supply its members with this "boycotting" tool. Of course, things may be different for a user who is annoyed not by twelve other users but by 1200. But such users should probably avoid using MO altogether. Oct 1 '15 at 19:00
• Let me add one thing. I don't regard this tool as "so bad" I just think it is not good, and asking for it is usually not reasonable. I also see why some people may find it offensive. Then, why provide it? Oct 1 '15 at 19:27
• I feel the comments above misrepresent a bit what is said on the other thread. As far as I understand the point that was mainly considered as offensive was that the original version of the script has the name of one specific user hard-coded into it. That is in the very post one particular user was singled out as a user to be ignored. Moreover, it seems to me the scope of the ignoring is larger there than requested. I feel it is a difference to want to ignore some users question-posts only, and to ignore them completely.
– user9072
Oct 2 '15 at 17:51
• Further to"If we are talking about dozen participants then on average their postings are much less than 1% of the posting one sees entering MO." For various meanings of "on average" this might be true, however "average" seems hardly relevant (both over users, and over time). The very point of the request seems to damp peeks and outliers. Especially for somebody narrowing down by tags already, blocking a dozen users that ask much might make a noticeable change. I do not see myself using such a script, I do not do any filtering at all, but I do not follow the arguments put forward here.
– user9072
Oct 2 '15 at 18:08

I found a way of mitigating and perhaps solving the issue that prompted my question which may even be acceptable to those that didn't like the idea of hiding users.

Certain adblockers (e.g. ublock origin) allow you to hide "elements" (not people!) on a web page and this works with questions on MO. So, if I see a question I don't like and I want it off my front page indefinitely, I use the adblocker and away it goes, even if it gets bumped back by an answer or an edit I won't see it. This way I can even first read the question, decide and/or vote, before I hide it if I want. I can "target" specific users if I want but it won't be automated (at least I haven't figured out how to do that yet).

Feel free to try it on this question.