When a comment chain is too long, new comments have to be loaded through the add / show 1 more comments link. After clicking on this link, I can add a reply:

Please avoid extended discussions in comments. Would you like to automatically move this discussion to chat?

After quickly misclicking on the textarea, a new chat is created. Without any confirmation...

I've experienced this [at least three times][2]. Can a confirmation dialog be added, so that chatrooms cannot be created by accident?
  • 6
    Better yet, can users just have the ability to turn that feature off altogether if they don't wish to participate in chat? That would even prevent other people from inviting them to chat.
    – Cody Gray
    Feb 10, 2012 at 18:50
  • 1
    @CodyGray That's an easy thing to do: Create a User Stylesheet, e.g using Stylish, and add the following line: @-moz-document domain("stackoverflow.com") {.discussion-info{display:none;}}. You will never see that thing again.
    – Rob W
    Feb 10, 2012 at 18:59
  • 1
    @RobW But others could still invite you.
    – Tim
    Apr 17, 2015 at 20:57

3 Answers 3


I have been using this Stylish sheet for a while, without any issues:

@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain('stackoverflow.com'),
               domain('askubuntu.com') {
    .discussion-info { /* Hide move to chat "feature" */
        display: none !important;

This can be implemented in a UserScript/GreaseMonkey/Chrome extension using (Click here for help on installing an User Script. Generally, open your text editor, paste the code below in it, and save the file with a .user.js extension. Then open the file in your browser):

// ==UserScript==
// @name           Stack Exchange: Get rid of move-to-chat suggestion
// @namespace      Rob W
// @match          http://stackoverflow.com/questions/*
// @match          http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/*
// @match          http://superuser.com/questions/*
// @match          http://meta.superuser.com/questions/*
// @match          http://serverfault.com/questions/*
// @match          http://meta.serverfault.com/questions/*
// @match          http://askubuntu.com/questions/*
// @match          http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/*
// @match          http://*.stackexchange.com/questions/*
// @match          http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/*
// @match          http://meta.answers.onstartups.com/questions/*
// @match          https://stackapps.com/questions/*
// @author         Rob W
// @version        1.0
// @run-at         document-end
// ==/UserScript==

var s = document.createElement('style');

I was about to propose the same thing having just done this myself twice in a row.

Blame me for being clumsy, etc, but while it sounds trivial, when it does happen you have to:

  • Be redirected and wait for chat to load
  • Close it all down
  • Get back to the question and remove the comment linking to chat

As this tends to happen in "quick fire" comments, the other person likely sees the chat comment while you are being sent to chat and having to close it down. So they think you want chat, and might even have already clicked the link.

It's not a very frequent issue, but I would imagine the code to make it happen can't be too much work?

RobW's suggestion sounds great, but I don't use "UserScript/GreaseMonkey/Chrome extension", and this is not something implemented into the site.

Using the site I don't really want to have to use 3rd party plugins for a better UX (within reason, of course).

  • 2
    yeah, happened to me twice too, though not in a row. Apr 11, 2015 at 19:54
  • 4th time for me now... Getting annoying!
    – Tim
    Apr 17, 2015 at 21:00

It's fair to argue that a single click shouldn't trigger an irreversible action.

Alternate proposal: automatically create the chatroom without any clicks at all, copy the conversation there, show the participants the link, and block them from posting any more comments for a day.

  • Anyway, I disagree. Sometimes people are just not interested in chat. Forcing them into it is a bad idea in my opinion and will only antagonise them, leading to both confusion and frustration. Jun 24, 2016 at 20:58
  • 2
    Arguably, this only triggers when you're already chatting @Shadow - the fact that you're using comments to do so is a minor detail, and it is possible that such conversations could be drawn into their own threads with less disruption than currently exists today.
    – Shog9
    Jun 24, 2016 at 21:27
  • 1
    IMO this means punishing people for using a feature of the site. Want to prevent it? Limit comments to e.g. 3 per user per post. After the limit is reached, the user will see "Please use chat for further discussion of this post" Jun 24, 2016 at 21:34
  • 1
    You're proposing a much more strict limit without an alternative. I fail to see how that solves anything.
    – Shog9
    Jun 24, 2016 at 21:35
  • It doesn't solve anything, but not forcing people to use chat just directs them towards it. If one wants it, he/she will take the required actions on their own. (I'm talking about the "automatically create the chatroom without any clicks at all" part in your answer) Jun 24, 2016 at 21:37
  • So instead of offering a fast path to folks who are already... Chatting... You would have them blocked and hand-waved in the direction of a system they may have never seen... On the off-chance that they might not like it.
    – Shog9
    Jun 24, 2016 at 21:39
  • Well, I know chat. I use chat a lot. And still highly dislike it when a whole chat room is created when I never intended it. So yes, I assume based on that that many others will dislike it even more. I might be wrong of course. :) Jun 24, 2016 at 21:44
  • Then you have no use for this feature, confirmation or otherwise @ShadowWizard. Cody's "I never want to chat" checkbox is really the only solution that'd meet your needs here.
    – Shog9
    Jun 24, 2016 at 23:11
  • 1
    lol, and ironically enough we started chatting here... but since we kind of hit a dead end, I don't think there's a point in continuing this in a chat room. Jun 25, 2016 at 10:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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