10

Problem: I am new to StackExchange and I have already started using multiple StackExchange sites. The problem is there is no easy way to switch between StackExchange sites that I am registered to.

Current Solution: The current method as far as I know is either to go directly to the URL or click my profile name -> click 'network profile' -> click 'accounts' and then finally click on the site I wish to go. This involves 4 clicks.

Proposal: It would be great if there is an interface to navigate quickly to a different StackExchange site from any page. One solution I could think of is to integrate this as a part of the 'StackExchange' drop down interface that appears in the top left of all pages. Along with 'hot questions', 'all sites' and 'inbox' it would be handy if something like 'my sites' is added. Clicking this 'my sites' would list all the StackExchange sites I am registered to and I can navigate to that site by clicking on it.

Improve this question
16

The drop-down on the top-left of every page can be used to access your sites using the "all sites" option.

screenshot of my Stack Exchange™ Multicollider™ Drop-Down™ Thing-a-ma-bob™ or whatever the hell it's apparently called

All the sites on the network are listed here, but they are sorted in reducing order of the reputation you have on the sites - so those you use most are at the top. However, those sites where you have less than 200rep are randomly sorted.

It looks like all your accounts are below that 200rep threshold at the moment as you're a very new user, but once you've passed that that barrier on a few sites the list will start to sort itself so you can get to the sites where you are most active quickly.

Improve this answer
12
  • What? It's semi-sorted now? Good to know. Was this mentioned somewhere? I thought it was still completely random until now.
    – Jeff Mercado
    Aug 3 '11 at 7:55
  • 1
    @Jeff it's been semi-sorted for as long as I can remember... the list of changes says since Feb - 2011-02-06: The "all sites" tab in the global inbox is now sorted by your reputation, if above 200.. Obviously, you have to be logged in to the site you're on for this to work.
    – DMA57361
    Aug 3 '11 at 7:56
  • Ah, I missed that update. I could have sworn I've seen requests on sorting the all sites tab well after that leading me to think it was still completely random. I'm good now. :)
    – Jeff Mercado
    Aug 3 '11 at 7:59
  • Hmm, mine isn't totally sorted in the order you state. I have 136 rep on the Tex site but this is listed lower than most of the other SE sites, ones that I haven't visited. Is there some lower rep limit beyond which sites aren't sorted properly?
    – Gavin Simpson
    Aug 3 '11 at 8:01
  • 1
    @Gavin: It was 200, you're well below that threshold. ;)
    – Jeff Mercado
    Aug 3 '11 at 8:02
  • 1
    @Jeff Thanks. So everything working as expected. Why the threshold at all though? I have participated in the TeX site for example so why sort amongst the sites I haven't interacted with yet? (Rhetorical or not aimed directly at you, Jeff)
    – Gavin Simpson
    Aug 3 '11 at 8:05
  • 1
    @Gavin I would presume the same reason that 200 is the barrier for getting the association bonus and the yearling badge - presumably its just an arbitrary marker selected to show some minimal level of involvement.
    – DMA57361
    Aug 3 '11 at 8:07
  • 4
    Minimum level of involvement would be rep 0, would it not? You get 1 just for turning up. I, personally, would find the All Sites tool more useful (I only found out what it was here in this Answer) if it listed sites I had participated in, no matter how low the rep. SO Meta only shows up sorted because I now have 211 rep (at several points yesterday it would and would not have been sorted as my rep fluctuated), yet I've been quite active here past day or three and rep here is more about opinion - you can have a good Q or A and still get down-voted if people disagree. Seems odd is all. Thanks
    – Gavin Simpson
    Aug 3 '11 at 8:16
  • @Gavin I didn't mean the minimum possible level (which is 1, you can't ever get to 0 or below, and you get 101 for turning up once over 200 anywhere else), I meant it's just some barrier that shows the person has actually posted on the site more than once or twice. And I've a few sub-200 accounts I don't care about, and I'd suspect there's people with accounts at well over 200 they don't want listed too - it's one of those matter of taste things really. So I guess it could maybe be added as a user selectable option for which sites appear, but I suspect that would be declined if requested.
    – DMA57361
    Aug 3 '11 at 13:47
  • @DMA it seems like people that would rather see sites that they have never visited listed above sites where they have 150 or so rep would be a pretty miniscule minority.
    – kekekela
    Aug 3 '11 at 15:33
  • @eternal That wasn't what I meant - I meant I have accounts that I don't care about (for example, I registered to cast a vote or it's the result of a migration), so am happy enough for them to be randomly sorted with the rest. Anyway, if it's something you lot feel should be changed you'll need to create a request post for it - nothings going to change if the threshold is discussed here.
    – DMA57361
    Aug 3 '11 at 16:36
  • I have opened a new feature request to reduce the threshold here.
    – chitti
    Aug 3 '11 at 18:20

You must log in to answer this question.

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