What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 150 Stack Exchange communities.

This question already has an answer here:

Is it possible to filter out Stack Exchange sites from the hot questions list?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by gnat, hims056, Danubian Sailor, Martijn Pieters, Flyk Feb 24 '14 at 8:46

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

Aww, the question lost its personality now that I didn't get to mention which SE sites I don't care about :) – Sam May 12 '11 at 8:46
Funnily enough, almost the same question has been asked an hour earlier: Can we customize or filter hot questions and site list in the StackExchange menu? (Or is that one different, @Sam?) – Hendrik Vogt May 12 '11 at 16:26
I also would like those sites + Christianity, Islam, Bible to not appear in my hot list, while others may not like distracting questions about Gaming or whatever else prevents them from staying focused. – Dan Dascalescu Feb 24 '14 at 0:40

1 Answer 1

Not likely.

But you could using a Greasemonkey script. Not the most complete set of features but it does what you want. Just update the blacklist and whitelist within the script to suit your needs.

// ==UserScript==
// @name           Filter Hot SE questions
// @namespace      http://stackoverflow.com/users/390278
// @include        http://stackoverflow.com/*
// @include        http://*.stackoverflow.com/*
// @include        http://superuser.com/*
// @include        http://*.superuser.com/*
// @include        http://serverfault.com/*
// @include        http://*.serverfault.com/*
// @include        http://stackapps.com/*
// @include        http://*.stackapps.com/*
// @include        http://askubuntu.com/*
// @include        http://*.askubuntu.com/*
// @include        http://*.stackexchange.com/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function() {
    function embedScript(id, main, globalFunctions) {
        var scriptElement = document.createElement("script");
        scriptElement.type = "text/javascript";
        scriptElement.id = id;
        var name, content = "";
        if (globalFunctions) {
            for (name in globalFunctions) {
                if (globalFunctions.hasOwnProperty(name)) {
                    content = content + name + "=(" + globalFunctions[name].toString() + "());\n";
        content = content + "(" + main.toString() + "());";
        scriptElement.textContent = content;
        return scriptElement;

    embedScript("filter-hot-se-questions", function () {
        var blacklist = [
        var whitelist = [

        $(".genu").click(function () {
            var retryCount = 0;
            const retryMax = 3;

            function tryFilter() {
                var $query = $("#seContainerHot>.itemBox").filter(function () {
                    var $link = $(this).find(".siteLink");
                    var site = $link.attr("href").match(/:\/\/(?:www\.)?(.[^\/:]+)/)[1];
                    return !$.inArray(site, blacklist) && $.inArray(site, whitelist);

                if ($query.length > 0) {
                    returyCount = 0;


                if (retryCount++ < retryMax) {
                    window.setTimeout(tryFilter, 1000);

            window.setTimeout(tryFilter, 1000);
share|improve this answer
Well, isn't the problem with this that you won't get any other hot questions to replace the ones that your greasemonkey script removes. You could end up with a nearly empty hot questions list if you are only interested in a few SE sites. – Sam May 12 '11 at 8:47
@Sam: Naturally. But that's a StackExchange "feature." It's how most things work here anyway. A fixed amount of content is downloaded and uninteresting items are merely hidden away. e.g., hiding questions with uninteresting tags. It would have to make another request to get more content (something on my todo list once I figure out how to do that). – Jeff Mercado May 12 '11 at 8:52
Well, wouldn't it make more sense to do the filtering server-side? – Sam May 12 '11 at 8:54
@Sam: IMHO yes of course. However we can only wish that the SE team does that but they don't. But I don't blame em. With the traffic they have to deal with every day, I can understand why they'd want to offload some of that work. – Jeff Mercado May 12 '11 at 8:56
there is also the problem that not all users necessarily have control of the pc they are reading from – jk. Sep 3 '11 at 10:54
There is also the problem that users may not use a Greasemonkey-capable browser. – Dan Dascalescu Feb 24 '14 at 0:42

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