Is the “hot network questions” element on Stack Overflow a dark pattern?
I asked a question on meta about hiding the "hot network questions" element on stackoverflow.com. One of the comment replies was that the "hot network questions" is basically a way for Stack Overflow to keep me on the site longer even to the point of distracting me from why I originally came here (to get an answer to a technical question/to answer technical questions and raise my stack score).
It is always in your eyeline, except on certain pages like settings/question formatting page with no way to disable it/modify it.
So if you think about it in that context, is it a dark pattern? In my opinion this is similar to a persuasive pattern that becomes a dark pattern when you take away user choice... similar to how Quora shows you other questions in the middle of reading answers to a question.
dark-patterns
New contributor
|
show 4 more comments
I asked a question on meta about hiding the "hot network questions" element on stackoverflow.com. One of the comment replies was that the "hot network questions" is basically a way for Stack Overflow to keep me on the site longer even to the point of distracting me from why I originally came here (to get an answer to a technical question/to answer technical questions and raise my stack score).
It is always in your eyeline, except on certain pages like settings/question formatting page with no way to disable it/modify it.
So if you think about it in that context, is it a dark pattern? In my opinion this is similar to a persuasive pattern that becomes a dark pattern when you take away user choice... similar to how Quora shows you other questions in the middle of reading answers to a question.
dark-patterns
New contributor
62
Hey, you are distracting me by posting a question listed in the HNQ!
– Jost
13 hours ago
10
If you have an adblocker and you want to hide the HNQ, you can filter out idhot-network-questions
.
– Chris Cirefice
12 hours ago
5
HNQs often feels like clickbait to me since the questions often have weird titles if you don't know their context (especially questions from world building or about games), though I'm not sure if it counts as dark pattern to intentionally leave out the context.
– kapex
12 hours ago
2
@kapex - yup,for eg a HNQ right now i can see is "how many colors does it take" without any other identifying characteristic besides stack site icon(which i don't anyone remembers). i know about color science,let me take a look and boom it's actually a puzzle that i have to force myself to click away from(puzzles are highly addictive to any technical minded person)
– kkarakk
12 hours ago
3
You distracted me from my work with this question trough the HNQ Section... I'll now go back and read the answers for my problem I currently have at work. :D
– Mischa
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I asked a question on meta about hiding the "hot network questions" element on stackoverflow.com. One of the comment replies was that the "hot network questions" is basically a way for Stack Overflow to keep me on the site longer even to the point of distracting me from why I originally came here (to get an answer to a technical question/to answer technical questions and raise my stack score).
It is always in your eyeline, except on certain pages like settings/question formatting page with no way to disable it/modify it.
So if you think about it in that context, is it a dark pattern? In my opinion this is similar to a persuasive pattern that becomes a dark pattern when you take away user choice... similar to how Quora shows you other questions in the middle of reading answers to a question.
dark-patterns
New contributor
I asked a question on meta about hiding the "hot network questions" element on stackoverflow.com. One of the comment replies was that the "hot network questions" is basically a way for Stack Overflow to keep me on the site longer even to the point of distracting me from why I originally came here (to get an answer to a technical question/to answer technical questions and raise my stack score).
It is always in your eyeline, except on certain pages like settings/question formatting page with no way to disable it/modify it.
So if you think about it in that context, is it a dark pattern? In my opinion this is similar to a persuasive pattern that becomes a dark pattern when you take away user choice... similar to how Quora shows you other questions in the middle of reading answers to a question.
dark-patterns
dark-patterns
New contributor
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
Glorfindel
91911121
91911121
New contributor
asked 17 hours ago
kkarakkkkarakk
31626
31626
New contributor
New contributor
62
Hey, you are distracting me by posting a question listed in the HNQ!
– Jost
13 hours ago
10
If you have an adblocker and you want to hide the HNQ, you can filter out idhot-network-questions
.
– Chris Cirefice
12 hours ago
5
HNQs often feels like clickbait to me since the questions often have weird titles if you don't know their context (especially questions from world building or about games), though I'm not sure if it counts as dark pattern to intentionally leave out the context.
– kapex
12 hours ago
2
@kapex - yup,for eg a HNQ right now i can see is "how many colors does it take" without any other identifying characteristic besides stack site icon(which i don't anyone remembers). i know about color science,let me take a look and boom it's actually a puzzle that i have to force myself to click away from(puzzles are highly addictive to any technical minded person)
– kkarakk
12 hours ago
3
You distracted me from my work with this question trough the HNQ Section... I'll now go back and read the answers for my problem I currently have at work. :D
– Mischa
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
62
Hey, you are distracting me by posting a question listed in the HNQ!
– Jost
13 hours ago
10
If you have an adblocker and you want to hide the HNQ, you can filter out idhot-network-questions
.
– Chris Cirefice
12 hours ago
5
HNQs often feels like clickbait to me since the questions often have weird titles if you don't know their context (especially questions from world building or about games), though I'm not sure if it counts as dark pattern to intentionally leave out the context.
– kapex
12 hours ago
2
@kapex - yup,for eg a HNQ right now i can see is "how many colors does it take" without any other identifying characteristic besides stack site icon(which i don't anyone remembers). i know about color science,let me take a look and boom it's actually a puzzle that i have to force myself to click away from(puzzles are highly addictive to any technical minded person)
– kkarakk
12 hours ago
3
You distracted me from my work with this question trough the HNQ Section... I'll now go back and read the answers for my problem I currently have at work. :D
– Mischa
12 hours ago
62
62
Hey, you are distracting me by posting a question listed in the HNQ!
– Jost
13 hours ago
Hey, you are distracting me by posting a question listed in the HNQ!
– Jost
13 hours ago
10
10
If you have an adblocker and you want to hide the HNQ, you can filter out id
hot-network-questions
.– Chris Cirefice
12 hours ago
If you have an adblocker and you want to hide the HNQ, you can filter out id
hot-network-questions
.– Chris Cirefice
12 hours ago
5
5
HNQs often feels like clickbait to me since the questions often have weird titles if you don't know their context (especially questions from world building or about games), though I'm not sure if it counts as dark pattern to intentionally leave out the context.
– kapex
12 hours ago
HNQs often feels like clickbait to me since the questions often have weird titles if you don't know their context (especially questions from world building or about games), though I'm not sure if it counts as dark pattern to intentionally leave out the context.
– kapex
12 hours ago
2
2
@kapex - yup,for eg a HNQ right now i can see is "how many colors does it take" without any other identifying characteristic besides stack site icon(which i don't anyone remembers). i know about color science,let me take a look and boom it's actually a puzzle that i have to force myself to click away from(puzzles are highly addictive to any technical minded person)
– kkarakk
12 hours ago
@kapex - yup,for eg a HNQ right now i can see is "how many colors does it take" without any other identifying characteristic besides stack site icon(which i don't anyone remembers). i know about color science,let me take a look and boom it's actually a puzzle that i have to force myself to click away from(puzzles are highly addictive to any technical minded person)
– kkarakk
12 hours ago
3
3
You distracted me from my work with this question trough the HNQ Section... I'll now go back and read the answers for my problem I currently have at work. :D
– Mischa
12 hours ago
You distracted me from my work with this question trough the HNQ Section... I'll now go back and read the answers for my problem I currently have at work. :D
– Mischa
12 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
No, it's not a dark pattern. You're not being tricked or forced into doing something that prevents your intended action.
Dark Patterns are about being tricked into doing something you otherwise don't want to do. Such as not unticking a checkbox that's hidden away and inadvertently signing up for a newsletter, or interrupting your current action to present an alternative, non-desired action (such as popping up a video you have to watch to continue reading the article). At no point on Stack Exchange are you prevented from continuing your task, nor are you forced into navigating somewhere by accident without knowing where you're going to end up.
The 'hot questions' section is just more content across the network and presented as a way of increasing your awareness of those other content areas. No different from Amazon doing a 'often purchased together' suggestion of product, or a news page suggesting other articles.
You could potentially make the argument that they count as clutter or a distraction, but that's not a dark pattern.
Basically, Hot Network Questions are no more a dark-pattern than banner adverts.
10
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
2
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
13
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
8
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
5
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I would say yes. If the only intention of the HNQ area was to advertise other StackExchange sites, they could have used neutral links, such as "Learning Japanese? Visit this site" "Love math? Visit this other site".
However, by displaying questions designed to pique one's curiosity (answers hidden behind a click, like a cliffhanger), the user is guided towards a stream of pointless dopamine shots. For every answer they read, they are presented with five new questions.
When I google a question, I arrive at StackExchange sites with a very specific purpose. The makers of this site know this and try to redirect me. If the intentionally addictive UX of social media and mobile games (arguably) counts as a dark pattern, then why not this?
Exploiting the curiosity of users to serve more ads is relatively harmless, but I'm not the first person to consider this kind of engagement hacking a dark pattern. It also reminds me of the concept of "nerd sniping", coined by xkcd.
Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't consider the HNQ area on the front page a dark pattern. The purpose of the front page is to let users explore the site/network. I only object to placement and design of the HNQ block next to actual answers, especially on sites focused on professional knowledge, like StackOverflow.
One more analogy: Placing candy at supermarket checkouts, where customers will get bored, was/is very effective. Nobody wants to stop supermarkets from selling sweets altogether, but the intentional placement makes it a dark pattern in context.
(Ironically, I was demonstrating how to hide the HNQ after a friend brought up the issue of being distracted by it. Then I saw this very question in the HNQ.)
New contributor
8
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
2
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
1
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
2
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
1
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
No, it's not a dark pattern at all. Neither by definition, nor by interaction. As JonW clearly said, no one is cheating on you to do something that will affect your intention.
However...
At UX, we work with data to create and improve user engagement. To do this, we use placements, colors, content hierarchies and other "tricks" if you want to call them that. These tricks are based on cognitive and behavioral psychology and a deep understanding of the behaviors of users.
So it's easy to see why you think you're being cheated: because they're using tricks to keep you engaged. And it seems to work, but at the same time you can say that you are being manipulated by the site (and yes, you are, like everyone else, that's the idea)
But saying all of the above, this is not a dark pattern, because you are not being forced and there is nothing hidden. You are presented with a set of options with which you can choose to participate. Or not.
It's like presenting a table full of tasty food, and they tell you that you're free to eat whatever you want. It is up to you whether to do it or not, there is no dark pattern at all, but it is a little worrisome that you (and others) find this as a dark pattern, because that implies one of the most important factors in measuring the effectiveness of a site: trust.
Finally, going to the HNQ
They are doing this for you to get involved with other sites on the network. This way, visitors are "cloned", and SE can show engagement values that are real and important to advertisers and investors. The same unique user becomes a different user when interacting with different sub-sites, and the retargeting can be made depending on the different sub-sites and interests for that unique user. We're talking traction and engagement here, and that defines the value of Stack Exchange as a business
add a comment |
In my opinion no. However, I do feel that the design is flawed due to lacking an option to quickly toggle its visibility.
As mentioned by @JonW, by my understanding of the definition merely distracting you doesn't make something a Dark Pattern. If you examine the provided examples, you will notice that each one actively attempts to decieve you.
In contrast, while the HNQ bar succeds in distracting many users including myself, it isn't in any way deceptive. If you choose to click on it, there's no mystery about where it will take you. Furthermore, it also has merits.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange community by increasing engagement.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange company by advertising other network sites to you and presumably increasing time spent interacting with the network as a whole.
If anything, I would classify the current form of the HNQ bar as clickbait. And similar to other clickbait advertisements, I typically choose to hide it by employing filtering rules similar to those mentioned in one of the answers to the previously linked question.
stackoverflow.com###hot-network-questions
stackexchange.com###hot-network-questions
As far as UX goes though, I'll note that in my view if the user feels compelled to filter first party content then the design has serious flaws. It's just that in this case, it doesn't happen to be flawed in the specific way you were asking about.
New contributor
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
add a comment |
As someone who has been drawn into spending more time than anticipated in the wormhole of the various stack exchange sites, I would argue that it does seem to be a way to get users drawn further into the site, but probably not explicitly a dark pattern. A dark pattern generally seems to describe an effort to take things other than the user's time, more like a website that tricks you into signing up for emails or paid subscriptions against your will. It is something of a gray area, perhaps.
This is admittedly not a direct answer to the OP's question, but it would be nice to be able to "turn off" the Hot Network Questions, an option which the site does not provide. A simple way to eliminate them is using a greasemonkey/tampermonkey script.
I have one that consists of just the following:
// ==UserScript==
// @name hide-stackexchange-hot
// @include *.stackexchange.com/*
// @include https://stackoverflow.com/*
// @description Hides the hot network questions on Stack Exchange sites
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.0/jquery.min.js
// @grant GM_addStyle
// ==/UserScript==
$('#hot-network-questions').remove();
It is effectively just a single useful line of code, which finds div tags with an ID of "hot-network-questions" and removes them from the page. Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension, and Tampermonkey is the chrome equivalent; both allow the source code of pages to be edited automatically by some prescribed code.
PS: I would have submitted this as a comment, but lack seniority to do so and would not be able to format my reply.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "102"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
kkarakk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123676%2fis-the-hot-network-questions-element-on-stack-overflow-a-dark-pattern%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, it's not a dark pattern. You're not being tricked or forced into doing something that prevents your intended action.
Dark Patterns are about being tricked into doing something you otherwise don't want to do. Such as not unticking a checkbox that's hidden away and inadvertently signing up for a newsletter, or interrupting your current action to present an alternative, non-desired action (such as popping up a video you have to watch to continue reading the article). At no point on Stack Exchange are you prevented from continuing your task, nor are you forced into navigating somewhere by accident without knowing where you're going to end up.
The 'hot questions' section is just more content across the network and presented as a way of increasing your awareness of those other content areas. No different from Amazon doing a 'often purchased together' suggestion of product, or a news page suggesting other articles.
You could potentially make the argument that they count as clutter or a distraction, but that's not a dark pattern.
Basically, Hot Network Questions are no more a dark-pattern than banner adverts.
10
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
2
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
13
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
8
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
5
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
No, it's not a dark pattern. You're not being tricked or forced into doing something that prevents your intended action.
Dark Patterns are about being tricked into doing something you otherwise don't want to do. Such as not unticking a checkbox that's hidden away and inadvertently signing up for a newsletter, or interrupting your current action to present an alternative, non-desired action (such as popping up a video you have to watch to continue reading the article). At no point on Stack Exchange are you prevented from continuing your task, nor are you forced into navigating somewhere by accident without knowing where you're going to end up.
The 'hot questions' section is just more content across the network and presented as a way of increasing your awareness of those other content areas. No different from Amazon doing a 'often purchased together' suggestion of product, or a news page suggesting other articles.
You could potentially make the argument that they count as clutter or a distraction, but that's not a dark pattern.
Basically, Hot Network Questions are no more a dark-pattern than banner adverts.
10
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
2
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
13
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
8
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
5
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
No, it's not a dark pattern. You're not being tricked or forced into doing something that prevents your intended action.
Dark Patterns are about being tricked into doing something you otherwise don't want to do. Such as not unticking a checkbox that's hidden away and inadvertently signing up for a newsletter, or interrupting your current action to present an alternative, non-desired action (such as popping up a video you have to watch to continue reading the article). At no point on Stack Exchange are you prevented from continuing your task, nor are you forced into navigating somewhere by accident without knowing where you're going to end up.
The 'hot questions' section is just more content across the network and presented as a way of increasing your awareness of those other content areas. No different from Amazon doing a 'often purchased together' suggestion of product, or a news page suggesting other articles.
You could potentially make the argument that they count as clutter or a distraction, but that's not a dark pattern.
Basically, Hot Network Questions are no more a dark-pattern than banner adverts.
No, it's not a dark pattern. You're not being tricked or forced into doing something that prevents your intended action.
Dark Patterns are about being tricked into doing something you otherwise don't want to do. Such as not unticking a checkbox that's hidden away and inadvertently signing up for a newsletter, or interrupting your current action to present an alternative, non-desired action (such as popping up a video you have to watch to continue reading the article). At no point on Stack Exchange are you prevented from continuing your task, nor are you forced into navigating somewhere by accident without knowing where you're going to end up.
The 'hot questions' section is just more content across the network and presented as a way of increasing your awareness of those other content areas. No different from Amazon doing a 'often purchased together' suggestion of product, or a news page suggesting other articles.
You could potentially make the argument that they count as clutter or a distraction, but that's not a dark pattern.
Basically, Hot Network Questions are no more a dark-pattern than banner adverts.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 14 hours ago
JonW♦JonW
30.8k18111149
30.8k18111149
10
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
2
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
13
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
8
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
5
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
10
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
2
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
13
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
8
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
5
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
10
10
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
@kkarakk You aren't being tricked into clicking them though. Being mildly distracting isn't a dark pattern. You know what's going to happen if you click on those links. You aren't forced to click one in order to continue reading the current page, they don't suddenly appear just as you're about to click elsewhere. As I say, they might be considered clutter or just visual noise, but that is a different issue to dark patterns. See these examples: darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern. Side bar content doesn't constitute any of these.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
2
2
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
just because it doesn't fit into a crowdsourced generic grouping doesn't mean it isn't dark. again no one is forcing me to visit stackoverflow at all, it's the subtle misdirection of visiting stackoverflow for a purpose vs being pushed towards aimlessly browsing quasi interesting content and wasting your time
– kkarakk
11 hours ago
13
13
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
@kkarakk It seems that your question was not looking for an actual answer, but more validation as to your definition of what Dark Pattern is. I have provided description as well as links that cover off what Dark Patterns are, but I cannot force you to accept them.
– JonW♦
11 hours ago
8
8
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
@kkarakk by that argument the entirety of TV Tropes is a Dark Pattern.
– aslum
11 hours ago
5
5
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
@kkarakk First, you're assuming your opinion on the HNQ is the same for everyone. I, for one, enjoy clicking through the different networks and reading interesting Q&As so to me it's not something I "don't want to do", I SEEK this out. Second, if distracting you from the single "main purpose" (whatever that may be, apparently ask/answer QA) then practically everything is a dark pattern; creating accounts, commenting, upvotes, privacy policies, etc. All of which are something I didn't "seek out" but cetainly aren't dark patterns.
– DasBeasto
9 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I would say yes. If the only intention of the HNQ area was to advertise other StackExchange sites, they could have used neutral links, such as "Learning Japanese? Visit this site" "Love math? Visit this other site".
However, by displaying questions designed to pique one's curiosity (answers hidden behind a click, like a cliffhanger), the user is guided towards a stream of pointless dopamine shots. For every answer they read, they are presented with five new questions.
When I google a question, I arrive at StackExchange sites with a very specific purpose. The makers of this site know this and try to redirect me. If the intentionally addictive UX of social media and mobile games (arguably) counts as a dark pattern, then why not this?
Exploiting the curiosity of users to serve more ads is relatively harmless, but I'm not the first person to consider this kind of engagement hacking a dark pattern. It also reminds me of the concept of "nerd sniping", coined by xkcd.
Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't consider the HNQ area on the front page a dark pattern. The purpose of the front page is to let users explore the site/network. I only object to placement and design of the HNQ block next to actual answers, especially on sites focused on professional knowledge, like StackOverflow.
One more analogy: Placing candy at supermarket checkouts, where customers will get bored, was/is very effective. Nobody wants to stop supermarkets from selling sweets altogether, but the intentional placement makes it a dark pattern in context.
(Ironically, I was demonstrating how to hide the HNQ after a friend brought up the issue of being distracted by it. Then I saw this very question in the HNQ.)
New contributor
8
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
2
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
1
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
2
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
1
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I would say yes. If the only intention of the HNQ area was to advertise other StackExchange sites, they could have used neutral links, such as "Learning Japanese? Visit this site" "Love math? Visit this other site".
However, by displaying questions designed to pique one's curiosity (answers hidden behind a click, like a cliffhanger), the user is guided towards a stream of pointless dopamine shots. For every answer they read, they are presented with five new questions.
When I google a question, I arrive at StackExchange sites with a very specific purpose. The makers of this site know this and try to redirect me. If the intentionally addictive UX of social media and mobile games (arguably) counts as a dark pattern, then why not this?
Exploiting the curiosity of users to serve more ads is relatively harmless, but I'm not the first person to consider this kind of engagement hacking a dark pattern. It also reminds me of the concept of "nerd sniping", coined by xkcd.
Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't consider the HNQ area on the front page a dark pattern. The purpose of the front page is to let users explore the site/network. I only object to placement and design of the HNQ block next to actual answers, especially on sites focused on professional knowledge, like StackOverflow.
One more analogy: Placing candy at supermarket checkouts, where customers will get bored, was/is very effective. Nobody wants to stop supermarkets from selling sweets altogether, but the intentional placement makes it a dark pattern in context.
(Ironically, I was demonstrating how to hide the HNQ after a friend brought up the issue of being distracted by it. Then I saw this very question in the HNQ.)
New contributor
8
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
2
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
1
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
2
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
1
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
I would say yes. If the only intention of the HNQ area was to advertise other StackExchange sites, they could have used neutral links, such as "Learning Japanese? Visit this site" "Love math? Visit this other site".
However, by displaying questions designed to pique one's curiosity (answers hidden behind a click, like a cliffhanger), the user is guided towards a stream of pointless dopamine shots. For every answer they read, they are presented with five new questions.
When I google a question, I arrive at StackExchange sites with a very specific purpose. The makers of this site know this and try to redirect me. If the intentionally addictive UX of social media and mobile games (arguably) counts as a dark pattern, then why not this?
Exploiting the curiosity of users to serve more ads is relatively harmless, but I'm not the first person to consider this kind of engagement hacking a dark pattern. It also reminds me of the concept of "nerd sniping", coined by xkcd.
Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't consider the HNQ area on the front page a dark pattern. The purpose of the front page is to let users explore the site/network. I only object to placement and design of the HNQ block next to actual answers, especially on sites focused on professional knowledge, like StackOverflow.
One more analogy: Placing candy at supermarket checkouts, where customers will get bored, was/is very effective. Nobody wants to stop supermarkets from selling sweets altogether, but the intentional placement makes it a dark pattern in context.
(Ironically, I was demonstrating how to hide the HNQ after a friend brought up the issue of being distracted by it. Then I saw this very question in the HNQ.)
New contributor
I would say yes. If the only intention of the HNQ area was to advertise other StackExchange sites, they could have used neutral links, such as "Learning Japanese? Visit this site" "Love math? Visit this other site".
However, by displaying questions designed to pique one's curiosity (answers hidden behind a click, like a cliffhanger), the user is guided towards a stream of pointless dopamine shots. For every answer they read, they are presented with five new questions.
When I google a question, I arrive at StackExchange sites with a very specific purpose. The makers of this site know this and try to redirect me. If the intentionally addictive UX of social media and mobile games (arguably) counts as a dark pattern, then why not this?
Exploiting the curiosity of users to serve more ads is relatively harmless, but I'm not the first person to consider this kind of engagement hacking a dark pattern. It also reminds me of the concept of "nerd sniping", coined by xkcd.
Edit: To be clear, I wouldn't consider the HNQ area on the front page a dark pattern. The purpose of the front page is to let users explore the site/network. I only object to placement and design of the HNQ block next to actual answers, especially on sites focused on professional knowledge, like StackOverflow.
One more analogy: Placing candy at supermarket checkouts, where customers will get bored, was/is very effective. Nobody wants to stop supermarkets from selling sweets altogether, but the intentional placement makes it a dark pattern in context.
(Ironically, I was demonstrating how to hide the HNQ after a friend brought up the issue of being distracted by it. Then I saw this very question in the HNQ.)
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
New contributor
answered 12 hours ago
jlnrjlnr
1714
1714
New contributor
New contributor
8
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
2
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
1
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
2
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
1
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
8
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
2
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
1
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
2
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
1
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
8
8
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
> the makers of this site know this -- not necessarily. I, for one, don't mind and quite like HNQ and I do sometimes come to the site explicitly to read them for entertainment and curiosity. So I view them as valid and occasionally useful tidbits. Why would the makers of SE prioritize your view over mine and should they?
– Gnudiff
10 hours ago
2
2
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
Fair enough. I can only extrapolate from my own experience, but when I search for a specific question and end up on StackOverflow, I never benefit from the HNQ. When I want to be entertained, I go to the front page, where I don't mind the large HNQ area at all because they support me in what I'm trying to do.
– jlnr
9 hours ago
1
1
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
@JonH I actually used AdBlock to block the HNQ, precisely for the reason not to be distracted.
– justhalf
8 hours ago
2
2
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
My point is we cannot blame that specific implementation to a bad pattern, you let yourself be distracted with wandering eyes. This happens in the real world outside of computers as well.
– JonH
8 hours ago
1
1
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
I explicitly come to stackoverflow for the HNQ
– SztupY
7 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
No, it's not a dark pattern at all. Neither by definition, nor by interaction. As JonW clearly said, no one is cheating on you to do something that will affect your intention.
However...
At UX, we work with data to create and improve user engagement. To do this, we use placements, colors, content hierarchies and other "tricks" if you want to call them that. These tricks are based on cognitive and behavioral psychology and a deep understanding of the behaviors of users.
So it's easy to see why you think you're being cheated: because they're using tricks to keep you engaged. And it seems to work, but at the same time you can say that you are being manipulated by the site (and yes, you are, like everyone else, that's the idea)
But saying all of the above, this is not a dark pattern, because you are not being forced and there is nothing hidden. You are presented with a set of options with which you can choose to participate. Or not.
It's like presenting a table full of tasty food, and they tell you that you're free to eat whatever you want. It is up to you whether to do it or not, there is no dark pattern at all, but it is a little worrisome that you (and others) find this as a dark pattern, because that implies one of the most important factors in measuring the effectiveness of a site: trust.
Finally, going to the HNQ
They are doing this for you to get involved with other sites on the network. This way, visitors are "cloned", and SE can show engagement values that are real and important to advertisers and investors. The same unique user becomes a different user when interacting with different sub-sites, and the retargeting can be made depending on the different sub-sites and interests for that unique user. We're talking traction and engagement here, and that defines the value of Stack Exchange as a business
add a comment |
No, it's not a dark pattern at all. Neither by definition, nor by interaction. As JonW clearly said, no one is cheating on you to do something that will affect your intention.
However...
At UX, we work with data to create and improve user engagement. To do this, we use placements, colors, content hierarchies and other "tricks" if you want to call them that. These tricks are based on cognitive and behavioral psychology and a deep understanding of the behaviors of users.
So it's easy to see why you think you're being cheated: because they're using tricks to keep you engaged. And it seems to work, but at the same time you can say that you are being manipulated by the site (and yes, you are, like everyone else, that's the idea)
But saying all of the above, this is not a dark pattern, because you are not being forced and there is nothing hidden. You are presented with a set of options with which you can choose to participate. Or not.
It's like presenting a table full of tasty food, and they tell you that you're free to eat whatever you want. It is up to you whether to do it or not, there is no dark pattern at all, but it is a little worrisome that you (and others) find this as a dark pattern, because that implies one of the most important factors in measuring the effectiveness of a site: trust.
Finally, going to the HNQ
They are doing this for you to get involved with other sites on the network. This way, visitors are "cloned", and SE can show engagement values that are real and important to advertisers and investors. The same unique user becomes a different user when interacting with different sub-sites, and the retargeting can be made depending on the different sub-sites and interests for that unique user. We're talking traction and engagement here, and that defines the value of Stack Exchange as a business
add a comment |
No, it's not a dark pattern at all. Neither by definition, nor by interaction. As JonW clearly said, no one is cheating on you to do something that will affect your intention.
However...
At UX, we work with data to create and improve user engagement. To do this, we use placements, colors, content hierarchies and other "tricks" if you want to call them that. These tricks are based on cognitive and behavioral psychology and a deep understanding of the behaviors of users.
So it's easy to see why you think you're being cheated: because they're using tricks to keep you engaged. And it seems to work, but at the same time you can say that you are being manipulated by the site (and yes, you are, like everyone else, that's the idea)
But saying all of the above, this is not a dark pattern, because you are not being forced and there is nothing hidden. You are presented with a set of options with which you can choose to participate. Or not.
It's like presenting a table full of tasty food, and they tell you that you're free to eat whatever you want. It is up to you whether to do it or not, there is no dark pattern at all, but it is a little worrisome that you (and others) find this as a dark pattern, because that implies one of the most important factors in measuring the effectiveness of a site: trust.
Finally, going to the HNQ
They are doing this for you to get involved with other sites on the network. This way, visitors are "cloned", and SE can show engagement values that are real and important to advertisers and investors. The same unique user becomes a different user when interacting with different sub-sites, and the retargeting can be made depending on the different sub-sites and interests for that unique user. We're talking traction and engagement here, and that defines the value of Stack Exchange as a business
No, it's not a dark pattern at all. Neither by definition, nor by interaction. As JonW clearly said, no one is cheating on you to do something that will affect your intention.
However...
At UX, we work with data to create and improve user engagement. To do this, we use placements, colors, content hierarchies and other "tricks" if you want to call them that. These tricks are based on cognitive and behavioral psychology and a deep understanding of the behaviors of users.
So it's easy to see why you think you're being cheated: because they're using tricks to keep you engaged. And it seems to work, but at the same time you can say that you are being manipulated by the site (and yes, you are, like everyone else, that's the idea)
But saying all of the above, this is not a dark pattern, because you are not being forced and there is nothing hidden. You are presented with a set of options with which you can choose to participate. Or not.
It's like presenting a table full of tasty food, and they tell you that you're free to eat whatever you want. It is up to you whether to do it or not, there is no dark pattern at all, but it is a little worrisome that you (and others) find this as a dark pattern, because that implies one of the most important factors in measuring the effectiveness of a site: trust.
Finally, going to the HNQ
They are doing this for you to get involved with other sites on the network. This way, visitors are "cloned", and SE can show engagement values that are real and important to advertisers and investors. The same unique user becomes a different user when interacting with different sub-sites, and the retargeting can be made depending on the different sub-sites and interests for that unique user. We're talking traction and engagement here, and that defines the value of Stack Exchange as a business
edited 2 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
DevinDevin
25.7k1260101
25.7k1260101
add a comment |
add a comment |
In my opinion no. However, I do feel that the design is flawed due to lacking an option to quickly toggle its visibility.
As mentioned by @JonW, by my understanding of the definition merely distracting you doesn't make something a Dark Pattern. If you examine the provided examples, you will notice that each one actively attempts to decieve you.
In contrast, while the HNQ bar succeds in distracting many users including myself, it isn't in any way deceptive. If you choose to click on it, there's no mystery about where it will take you. Furthermore, it also has merits.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange community by increasing engagement.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange company by advertising other network sites to you and presumably increasing time spent interacting with the network as a whole.
If anything, I would classify the current form of the HNQ bar as clickbait. And similar to other clickbait advertisements, I typically choose to hide it by employing filtering rules similar to those mentioned in one of the answers to the previously linked question.
stackoverflow.com###hot-network-questions
stackexchange.com###hot-network-questions
As far as UX goes though, I'll note that in my view if the user feels compelled to filter first party content then the design has serious flaws. It's just that in this case, it doesn't happen to be flawed in the specific way you were asking about.
New contributor
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In my opinion no. However, I do feel that the design is flawed due to lacking an option to quickly toggle its visibility.
As mentioned by @JonW, by my understanding of the definition merely distracting you doesn't make something a Dark Pattern. If you examine the provided examples, you will notice that each one actively attempts to decieve you.
In contrast, while the HNQ bar succeds in distracting many users including myself, it isn't in any way deceptive. If you choose to click on it, there's no mystery about where it will take you. Furthermore, it also has merits.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange community by increasing engagement.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange company by advertising other network sites to you and presumably increasing time spent interacting with the network as a whole.
If anything, I would classify the current form of the HNQ bar as clickbait. And similar to other clickbait advertisements, I typically choose to hide it by employing filtering rules similar to those mentioned in one of the answers to the previously linked question.
stackoverflow.com###hot-network-questions
stackexchange.com###hot-network-questions
As far as UX goes though, I'll note that in my view if the user feels compelled to filter first party content then the design has serious flaws. It's just that in this case, it doesn't happen to be flawed in the specific way you were asking about.
New contributor
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
add a comment |
In my opinion no. However, I do feel that the design is flawed due to lacking an option to quickly toggle its visibility.
As mentioned by @JonW, by my understanding of the definition merely distracting you doesn't make something a Dark Pattern. If you examine the provided examples, you will notice that each one actively attempts to decieve you.
In contrast, while the HNQ bar succeds in distracting many users including myself, it isn't in any way deceptive. If you choose to click on it, there's no mystery about where it will take you. Furthermore, it also has merits.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange community by increasing engagement.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange company by advertising other network sites to you and presumably increasing time spent interacting with the network as a whole.
If anything, I would classify the current form of the HNQ bar as clickbait. And similar to other clickbait advertisements, I typically choose to hide it by employing filtering rules similar to those mentioned in one of the answers to the previously linked question.
stackoverflow.com###hot-network-questions
stackexchange.com###hot-network-questions
As far as UX goes though, I'll note that in my view if the user feels compelled to filter first party content then the design has serious flaws. It's just that in this case, it doesn't happen to be flawed in the specific way you were asking about.
New contributor
In my opinion no. However, I do feel that the design is flawed due to lacking an option to quickly toggle its visibility.
As mentioned by @JonW, by my understanding of the definition merely distracting you doesn't make something a Dark Pattern. If you examine the provided examples, you will notice that each one actively attempts to decieve you.
In contrast, while the HNQ bar succeds in distracting many users including myself, it isn't in any way deceptive. If you choose to click on it, there's no mystery about where it will take you. Furthermore, it also has merits.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange community by increasing engagement.
- It serves the interests of the StackExchange company by advertising other network sites to you and presumably increasing time spent interacting with the network as a whole.
If anything, I would classify the current form of the HNQ bar as clickbait. And similar to other clickbait advertisements, I typically choose to hide it by employing filtering rules similar to those mentioned in one of the answers to the previously linked question.
stackoverflow.com###hot-network-questions
stackexchange.com###hot-network-questions
As far as UX goes though, I'll note that in my view if the user feels compelled to filter first party content then the design has serious flaws. It's just that in this case, it doesn't happen to be flawed in the specific way you were asking about.
New contributor
edited 6 hours ago
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
AnOccasionalCashewAnOccasionalCashew
1213
1213
New contributor
New contributor
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
add a comment |
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
This answer is exactly what I came here to say. I did the developer survey today and one thing that I mentioned was that it would be nice to have an option to tun off HNQ sidebar.
– Quentin Skousen
1 hour ago
add a comment |
As someone who has been drawn into spending more time than anticipated in the wormhole of the various stack exchange sites, I would argue that it does seem to be a way to get users drawn further into the site, but probably not explicitly a dark pattern. A dark pattern generally seems to describe an effort to take things other than the user's time, more like a website that tricks you into signing up for emails or paid subscriptions against your will. It is something of a gray area, perhaps.
This is admittedly not a direct answer to the OP's question, but it would be nice to be able to "turn off" the Hot Network Questions, an option which the site does not provide. A simple way to eliminate them is using a greasemonkey/tampermonkey script.
I have one that consists of just the following:
// ==UserScript==
// @name hide-stackexchange-hot
// @include *.stackexchange.com/*
// @include https://stackoverflow.com/*
// @description Hides the hot network questions on Stack Exchange sites
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.0/jquery.min.js
// @grant GM_addStyle
// ==/UserScript==
$('#hot-network-questions').remove();
It is effectively just a single useful line of code, which finds div tags with an ID of "hot-network-questions" and removes them from the page. Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension, and Tampermonkey is the chrome equivalent; both allow the source code of pages to be edited automatically by some prescribed code.
PS: I would have submitted this as a comment, but lack seniority to do so and would not be able to format my reply.
New contributor
add a comment |
As someone who has been drawn into spending more time than anticipated in the wormhole of the various stack exchange sites, I would argue that it does seem to be a way to get users drawn further into the site, but probably not explicitly a dark pattern. A dark pattern generally seems to describe an effort to take things other than the user's time, more like a website that tricks you into signing up for emails or paid subscriptions against your will. It is something of a gray area, perhaps.
This is admittedly not a direct answer to the OP's question, but it would be nice to be able to "turn off" the Hot Network Questions, an option which the site does not provide. A simple way to eliminate them is using a greasemonkey/tampermonkey script.
I have one that consists of just the following:
// ==UserScript==
// @name hide-stackexchange-hot
// @include *.stackexchange.com/*
// @include https://stackoverflow.com/*
// @description Hides the hot network questions on Stack Exchange sites
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.0/jquery.min.js
// @grant GM_addStyle
// ==/UserScript==
$('#hot-network-questions').remove();
It is effectively just a single useful line of code, which finds div tags with an ID of "hot-network-questions" and removes them from the page. Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension, and Tampermonkey is the chrome equivalent; both allow the source code of pages to be edited automatically by some prescribed code.
PS: I would have submitted this as a comment, but lack seniority to do so and would not be able to format my reply.
New contributor
add a comment |
As someone who has been drawn into spending more time than anticipated in the wormhole of the various stack exchange sites, I would argue that it does seem to be a way to get users drawn further into the site, but probably not explicitly a dark pattern. A dark pattern generally seems to describe an effort to take things other than the user's time, more like a website that tricks you into signing up for emails or paid subscriptions against your will. It is something of a gray area, perhaps.
This is admittedly not a direct answer to the OP's question, but it would be nice to be able to "turn off" the Hot Network Questions, an option which the site does not provide. A simple way to eliminate them is using a greasemonkey/tampermonkey script.
I have one that consists of just the following:
// ==UserScript==
// @name hide-stackexchange-hot
// @include *.stackexchange.com/*
// @include https://stackoverflow.com/*
// @description Hides the hot network questions on Stack Exchange sites
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.0/jquery.min.js
// @grant GM_addStyle
// ==/UserScript==
$('#hot-network-questions').remove();
It is effectively just a single useful line of code, which finds div tags with an ID of "hot-network-questions" and removes them from the page. Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension, and Tampermonkey is the chrome equivalent; both allow the source code of pages to be edited automatically by some prescribed code.
PS: I would have submitted this as a comment, but lack seniority to do so and would not be able to format my reply.
New contributor
As someone who has been drawn into spending more time than anticipated in the wormhole of the various stack exchange sites, I would argue that it does seem to be a way to get users drawn further into the site, but probably not explicitly a dark pattern. A dark pattern generally seems to describe an effort to take things other than the user's time, more like a website that tricks you into signing up for emails or paid subscriptions against your will. It is something of a gray area, perhaps.
This is admittedly not a direct answer to the OP's question, but it would be nice to be able to "turn off" the Hot Network Questions, an option which the site does not provide. A simple way to eliminate them is using a greasemonkey/tampermonkey script.
I have one that consists of just the following:
// ==UserScript==
// @name hide-stackexchange-hot
// @include *.stackexchange.com/*
// @include https://stackoverflow.com/*
// @description Hides the hot network questions on Stack Exchange sites
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/2.1.0/jquery.min.js
// @grant GM_addStyle
// ==/UserScript==
$('#hot-network-questions').remove();
It is effectively just a single useful line of code, which finds div tags with an ID of "hot-network-questions" and removes them from the page. Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension, and Tampermonkey is the chrome equivalent; both allow the source code of pages to be edited automatically by some prescribed code.
PS: I would have submitted this as a comment, but lack seniority to do so and would not be able to format my reply.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
SamSam
211
211
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
kkarakk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
kkarakk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
kkarakk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
kkarakk is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to User Experience Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fux.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123676%2fis-the-hot-network-questions-element-on-stack-overflow-a-dark-pattern%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
62
Hey, you are distracting me by posting a question listed in the HNQ!
– Jost
13 hours ago
10
If you have an adblocker and you want to hide the HNQ, you can filter out id
hot-network-questions
.– Chris Cirefice
12 hours ago
5
HNQs often feels like clickbait to me since the questions often have weird titles if you don't know their context (especially questions from world building or about games), though I'm not sure if it counts as dark pattern to intentionally leave out the context.
– kapex
12 hours ago
2
@kapex - yup,for eg a HNQ right now i can see is "how many colors does it take" without any other identifying characteristic besides stack site icon(which i don't anyone remembers). i know about color science,let me take a look and boom it's actually a puzzle that i have to force myself to click away from(puzzles are highly addictive to any technical minded person)
– kkarakk
12 hours ago
3
You distracted me from my work with this question trough the HNQ Section... I'll now go back and read the answers for my problem I currently have at work. :D
– Mischa
12 hours ago