Since this was posted, we've taken your input below, and incorporated it into a newer prototype, described here:

Profile Page Makeover, Part 2: the Prototype

The Big Idea

Create a page on the network that summarizes who I am as a developer, and lets me show off the stuff I am most proud of. Some of this information is only available by creating a Careers profile, but we want to open it up to everybody, even if you don’t have one.

Background: The Problem

Our current user profile page tries to do too many things. It is trying to make basic user info available for a person who knows nothing about me (by showing my name, website, “about me” text, etc.), and at the same time it’s trying to give me information about myself (by showing reputation, activity, etc.). The result is a cluttered, confusing page that isn’t optimal for either party.

It is also missing key information that is captured in the Careers profile but cannot fit into the existing user page. I want to show off my open source projects and apps, but there is no room for them except the free-text “About Me” section. When we add in all of this new stuff, it’s just too much.

So where do we put everything? We looked at meta posts, and metrics, and heatmaps...and we found out that the use cases for this page split neatly into two groups: what users want to see when they’re viewing somebody else’s profile, and what users want to see when viewing their own profile.

So, we are proposing a split for the profile page: a new, more specialized user profile page, called About Me, that summarizes who I am as a developer and shows off the stuff I am most proud of. We’re focusing on summary and context, instead of a big page of numbers and lists.

The existing profile page, which we will call a dashboard for now, will remain the same except for losing the bio section at the top. We’ll come back around to that sometime later.

The Design

  • The bio information is the core of the about me page, so we keep that at the top: Screen name, reputation and rank, badge, long bio. You’ll now be able to include your current employer and position, even if you don’t have a careers profile.

  • Your tags are a good indicator of your interests and aptitude. We bring the tags higher on the page, and make them bigger. They’re limited to your top six, and we have special bronze, silver, and gold styling if you have earned the corresponding tag badge. This section is now interactive, allowing users to click on your tags and drill down into your posts in that tag.

  • Questions and answers go immediately below tags. This section gets more real estate than the old version, and we’ve integrated post-related badges into the display. If you’ve received a badge related to the post, it’ll appear below the title. We’re experimenting with a new votes display, which may or may not make it into the final version.

  • The badges section used to just be a list… Of badges. A huge list. Some people have thousands. Nobody ever scrolled through all of them. We’ve now broken down the badges into categories for better, quicker viewing. Your two most important badges in each category get featured status, and the rest get a visualization.

  • More links to other services. The left sidebar will now have a section for including links to your Twitter, GitHub, and portfolio/website.

  • More network awareness is coming to the page. Your top posts of all time on the network will now be visible in the lower part of the sidebar, along with your top network sites.

  • Applications and projects are coming over from Careers. You’ll now be able to list your applications, open-source software, and other projects on your Stack Overflow profile.

What happens to the existing user page?

The current user profile page will stay, without the user information section at the top. Everything you could get to before will be accessible through this page.

How do I navigate between the “About Me” page and the existing page?

Whenever you click a user link from a post or the users page, you’ll be linked to the “About Me” page. If you click your name in the top bar, you’ll go straight to the current page, as always. You can navigate between them using the tabs within the page.

What about sites other than Stack Overflow that won't have Careers elements?

There won't be an applications and projects section and the badges section will be full width.

What about moderator stuff?

Everything will still be there. We are just going to put it in a box at the top of the page. Design TBD.

This is a draft, and is still open to change, especially elements that might have to be reflected throughout the site (vote indicator boxes, etc).

This is where we open the floor for comments. You know the drill: Try to keep it to one request/comment per answer, and upvote/downvote according to your agreement. We’ll do another round of revisions to take feedback into account.

New profile page

  • 45
    SO MUCH CHEESE MOVED! But I'll ask the obvious question: What about all of the other sites that have nothing to do with programming and for which the "Apps & Projects" section wouldn't be applicable?
    – Tim Stone
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 15:41
  • 8
    Gotcha. My only other concerns then are the obnoxious badge level bars in the bottom badge section, and the general dissimilarity between the styling of the screenshot and the styling of the rest of Stack Overflow (Are you going to let Jin break loose on the whole site? :O)
    – Tim Stone
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 15:44
  • 16
    @TimStone The design team is currently fighting to the death to determine who gets to make that decision
    – Jeremy T
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 15:45
  • 11
    On sites related to academic subjects, papers and conference contributions are the effective equivalent of "Apps and Projects". On artistic sites some kind of portfolio information. Obviously these represent future projects rather than a feature to look at right now. Six to eight weeks and all that. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 15:49
  • 13
    Wait. I'm confused... so this isn't just Careers, this is Stack Overflow, with Careers. So are profiles going to have a different look on Stack Overflow from all other sites on the network? Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 15:53
  • 5
    @JeremyT one of the most useful things in user profile is his/her activity, currently displayed in its own tab. I see it's gone? Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:08
  • 10
    I thought this was about redesigning Careers till I read BoltClock's comment. This creates a lot of complications. What about research papers, journal publications in the case of Academia? Or about people who engage in both, development (software, apps, repos) and research (papers, publications)? What happens to design related work? What happens to electronic/hardware projects? Is this a really early design or have you guys thought of something for all these aspects?
    – asheeshr
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:19
  • 7
    How does this work for mods? I click on user profiles all the time and the important page for me is the dashboard, not the About me. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 17:52
  • 23
    The result is a cluttered, confusing page that isn’t optimal for either party. that's almost literally what I said, many times over, when the profile page got its current design a couple years back. Not that anybody gave a damn back then beyond "well if you want it changed, you can always make a feature request". Just sayin'.
    – Pekka
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:05
  • 11
    @Pëkka for product manager!
    – Tim Stone
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:05
  • 37
    I really don't like what I'm looking at here. It feels awfully cluttered (as has been noted above), and way too focused on being some sort of résumé for the user (and by that I don't mean a summary, I genuinely mean it looks like it should be a friggin Careers page). The lack of functionality from the current profile (sorting the various lists; bounties; reputation history; votes cast; heck even age seems to be missing) is also rather disappointing. There's a lot about the profile that could be done better, but this seems too ... LinkedIn+Facebook-ish in execution.
    – user98085
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 0:34
  • 12
    I apologize for being somewhat critical of this, but the only changes should be either to a) show more information overall, not less, and b) to clean up existing layouts so they might look a touch nicer. The existing layout for the profile page is highly informational - and in my opinion, that's all it should be. No emphasis. No coloring. No strange size changes. No fancy spacings. Just informational text, laid out in a pleasing, but primarily effective way.
    – user206222
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 6:41
  • 13
    @Emracool No way man, insane whitespace for the win. Besides, nobody goes to profile pages to get useful at-a-glance information that directly pertains to the usage of the site (and to the reasons for being here in the first place). Everybody wants to see the same random collection of redundant career snippets and personal information that's probably also present on at least 3 other social networking sites already. We don't give a damn about no stinkin' SNR! Why post a link to your linked-in profile in your about box when you can just have a random half of it here instead?
    – Jason C
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 6:44
  • 7
    @JasonC I don't. I really don't care about pet names and spouse names and favorite foods or whatever. This is not a social networking site and there are still many people (myself included) who neither use nor like social networking sites and in fact avoid them like the horrible plague they are. If you want to link to your facebook page great, go for it but please don't force me to wade through irrelevant crap if all I want is to find that nice answer you posted a month ago.
    – terdon
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 17:08
  • 5
    @terdon You're preaching to the choir! :) "Please don't force me to wade through irrelevant crap if all I want is to find that nice answer you posted a month ago" is exactly what I (sarcastically) meant. The new profile page is dominated by irrelevant crap that you'd be forced to wade through when really you just needed a utility to solve a concrete task (e.g. finding that answer a user posted a month ago) that helps you use the site effectively. It's a tiny step in moving SO a little bit closer to the horrible plague that other social networking sites have become.
    – Jason C
    Commented Mar 22, 2014 at 17:12

18 Answers 18


I have a lot of concerns with this proposal. In fact, I can mark them all on the image, and leave almost nothing:

Marked Screenshot

Red circles mark information that contradicts with other information:

  • The badge count at the top is different from the badge count at its section is different from the badge counts in the badge section. Which of these is real? What do these counts tell me?
  • The "communities" count doesn't tell me what it's about, and as it stands right now directly conflicts with the various communities below it.

Blue marks superfluous or pointless information:

  • Why would I care about the badges the user earned with his top posts? Why are these sorted by badge tier? This almost guarantees that most of the time it will be score and view badges. How are those badges relevant? What do they really tell me (that the view and vote count don't), or anyone looking at the profile?
  • All network posts? Why would I want to see all network posts by a user, or want to know their top posts across the network? What does that have to do with the community I'm on? We have "Top network posts" but no section for meta activity on the same community? I want to know what this person does for this community, and where else they're active (accounts, not posts), not what random post of theirs happened to attract a crapton of votes (case in point: my top post network-wide is a question about a doge game). If I want to see their posts and activity across the network, I look at their network profile.

Green marks information that doesn't tell me what it even is:

  • What are these timestamps? Last activity? CreationDate?

Yellow marks sections that need to be prominently placed and contain a lot of information:

  • As established already, the About Me section is important and needs to be prominently placed and include more than just a few lines.
  • Tags are prominently placed, but only contain the top six tags? This is less information than the current version, but it's big and shiny. If I want to know the span of knowledge this user has, I want to see more than just six tags. And I want to get some sort of impression what their roundabout participation across those tags is - how many tag badges? Average score or post count per tag? Anything like that, but it needs to provide information beyond "these are a handful of tags, now leave me alone".
  • The activity section needs to be prominently placed. Almost every time I look at a user's profile, it's either to check what they have done recently or look for a specific post I know was by that user (for which the search function should be more useful, but hey, SE search was never all too good). The only mention of any recent activity (since this banishes recent reputation, and sorting by "recent activity" in the post/badge lists) is "last seen". While this is an important piece of information I use on a daily basis, people genuinely didn't find it in the screenshot, and it is the least expressive bit of activity. "last seen" could be anything - what have they actually done?

Pink marks content that has a site-specific purpose:

  • While a good idea in general, these bits have a lot of potential - essentially replacing site-specific sections in the About Me block. That's a really good idea, and a lot can come of it. But not if it's exclusive to SO (which seems like it's planned to change, so kudos there!), and has no proper way to opt out without cancelling those service links at the root.
  • 14
    I'm sorry for putting this all into one answer, but at the end of the day I'm not really convinced by anything in this plan, so ... I suppose this is me complaining about it all as a whole. Also, yay freehand circles \o/
    – user98085
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 17:36
  • 7
    Good catch with the point about meta! I use that link a fair bit. Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 18:33
  • 4
    The "about" text should be the most important stuff on a page that's "about the user" (as opposed to the dashboard). While a lot of people don't fill them out (looks sheepish), those who do should have a lot more of it shown than this design allows for. Yes that means either having empty space (for the former case) or using responsive design (don't know how hard that is for this), but something better is needed there. We shouldn't be trying to do Twitter-style "describe yourself, but in 140 characters". Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 18:35
  • 15
    This is along the lines of what I want to say, too: the proposed revision looks like it's moving away from being a per-site profile, which just doesn't make sense to me. When I go to a user's page, it's because I want to know about their account here, not everything they do in their lives.
    – jscs
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 19:25
  • 12
    Color coded hand drawn circles? Mind *blown*.
    – Travis J
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 20:36
  • 3
    OK, now I have a dilemma: should I just make 100 new Meta accounts to upvote this like crazy or should I trust that the community will do it instead ? The point about not moving from a per-site profile to a network profile is the most important, totally agreed :) . Commented Mar 25, 2014 at 8:56
  • I personally agree with this like 100%. The current profile page provides me with quick and easy access to all the information I need/want. This mockup looks mainly like a snazzy mess.
    – ɥʇǝS
    Commented Apr 25, 2014 at 15:46

Something I am always looking at in other user's profiles is their recent activity. Especially their questions, so I can see if what they were just asking me was also placed in a question.

Re-incorporate a way to either show question and answers by date, votes, views(or activity... did anyone even use the activity filter?). It is almost always the first thing I look at. It would be nice if the page loaded with the most recent questions and answers ideally.

  • 22
    this is especially important for meta-dwellers like me because people come here all MODS Y U NO TREAT ME FAIR or NOOBS ARE THEY AWFUL OR WHAT AMIRITE with no links or background to the rant. Off I go to their profile to see if I can figure out what they're ranting about. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:49
  • 1
    Note that that information/sort criteria/filter criteria is presumably still all available on the "Dashboard" tab, which isn't shown in the post.
    – Tim Stone
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:51
  • 22
    +1: This is just about the only reason I ever visit somebody's profile. If you want to make it pretty and snazzy and whatnot then the only person you're doing that for is the person whose profile it is. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:11
  • 2
    I use the activity filter quite a bit.
    – 3ventic
    Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 21:19
  • @Xsi I have no idea what that comment meant... Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 16:40
  • +1, but not "It would be nice if the page loaded with the most recent questions and answers ideally." - I think defaulting to the last ordering (globally) by you would be better. Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 16:43
  • @Dukeling - I agree that the preference should be stored (I think that is how it works now?), but the default if no preference was used is currently "newest" I believe.
    – Travis J
    Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 17:18

Is the Careers link optional? I have additional details about myself (starting with my full name and picture) that I would only trust with people who pay for the privilege. I have gone to great lengths to keep this information private so far, with varying amounts of success, from the internet at large.

The Careers link also doesn't make sense for some other sites in the network such as, well, Arqade. Some users are using Arqade-only nicknames because, hey, what if their would-be employer knows that their candidate likes videogames?

While I don't agree with the second scenario, I don't feel that I should tell people how to manage their presence on the internet — I don't foresee being talked into changing my mind either.

  • 39
    You mean your name isn't "badp"? Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:01
  • 4
    The careers link will appear only if you have a careers profile and have chosen to share it publicly
    – Jeremy T
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:02
  • 5
    @JeremyT My profile is public and googleable, but it takes more or less significant social engineering to get there. (Most of it is actually information I myself consider public, except my photo and my surname.)
    – badp
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:04
  • 8
    To be honest, my usual answer to "what if their would-be employer knows that their candidate likes videogames?" is "I don't want to work for an employer that would reject me based on that". Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:11
  • 1
    @R.MartinhoFernandes I agree but I can't enforce this onto others.
    – badp
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:15
  • 1
    @R.MartinhoFernandes the flip side is "I am employer who cares that my employees play videogames, which is a form of discrimination I willingly adhere to, and I am a bad person because of it". Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 16:46
  • @Nick, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I'm tempted to treat as sarcasm, but afraid I might be missing something. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 17:02
  • 2
    @R.MartinhoFernandes it is sarcasm, and it's also why I think it's probably a better idea to not worry about what possible employers can find out about you, because if he's going to discriminate against you, you'd prefer to have that happen up front instead of feeling like you have to hide everything not work related from your employer. On the same token, why would you even include your SO profile on your resume? You have time for that? NO HIRE. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:27
  • 18
    @JeremyT, just because somebody has publicly shared his Careers profile and publicly shared his Arqade profile doesn't mean that he's chosen to publicly share the connection between the two. (Doesn't affect me, but I understand badp's point.) Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 22:32
  • 8
    @NickLarsen This is not only about employers, you never know what might come back and bite you. What if I leave a disparaging comment and it turns out it was my father in law's post? My activities on the SE sites are my own business and I have chosen to participate with a pseudonym and have absolutely no desire to have my real name bandied about the internet. Protecting the anonymity of those users who wish to remain anonymous should be a priority.
    – terdon
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 23:13
  • @terdon Not making disparaging comments about anyone, father in law or otherwise, would save you that potential grief. Even if you do choose use a psudonym (a choice I have no objection to you making even if I have embraced a real name policy for my own life) that should not be free license to make disparaging remarks.
    – Caleb
    Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 19:43
  • @Caleb disparaging was not the best choice of words. I try never to be rude in my comments and in fact, go out of my way to be polite. However, people can often take offense nevertheless for something a simple as pointing out a flaw in their logic. My point was that I want to be free to express myself (within the bounds of civility) without worrying about it coming back at me from an unexpected quarter. I value my anonymity (I'm one of the weirdos who hates social media for example) and I'm bothered by the current trend to make the internet eponymous.
    – terdon
    Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 19:49

I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of what's happening with the bio styling. My bio isn't even that long and it doesn't fully fit into the new area:

enter image description here

Emphasizing the first sentence (paragraph?) seems weird. Granted, it works out okay semantically in my specific case, but I don't think we can or should be making that sort of an assumption about what people might write in. The whole thing also starts fading out before that sentence is even over.

I think we should increase the vertical space given to that field by default and stick with a uniform (and perhaps a bit smaller) font size.

  • 2
    Where can you see the new style profile pages?
    – badp
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:39
  • 1
    @badp It's a dev-only route at the moment.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:40
  • 3
    @badp Anna is a known teaser! ;) Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:41
  • I considered making the same argument using Nick's example profile, but then I figured... what the hell. :)
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:42
  • To be fair, the mockup of Nick's profile above shows more than the older dev version you're looking at. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 20:06
  • @DavidFullerton Sure. As far as I can tell, though, that part hasn't really changed conceptually.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 20:07
  • 2
    I'm not sure how you can style this without blocking clicks on the content behind...it's a little frustrating to have to expand before clicking a perfectly visible link. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 21:14
  • 12
    I hadn't realized the first sentence would be automatically made larger. I assumed that was Nick's choice. Please don't do that! It's ugly, well I find it ugly anyway, and makes unwarranted assumptions about what people put on their about pages. Plus, it seems a bit aggressive, like "HEY LOOK AT ME!".
    – terdon
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 23:20
  • 1
    My bio on most sites is "Carbon-based lifeform", but on a couple of sites I have a few paragraphs. And I want that shown.
    – TRiG
    Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 13:33
  • +1. You mentioned fading out, but it's unclear whether you're suggesting it should fade out at all or not (I don't think it should). Also, only displaying parts of text comes with some inherit content problems, although I'm not sure whether omitting this completely is the better option. Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 16:53

There won't be an Apps and Projects section [for other sites]

What about other technical/programming sites, like Code Golf or Programmers? What if I want my projects to be there?

A possible solution is a site-specific section there. It could be GitHub for programming-related sites, a recipe site or something for Cooking, a gallery site like DeviantArt for artistic sites like Photography, etc.

Or, it could just be called "Projects," and it is made by the user, who provides as many links as he/she wants in that section. This is also advantageous as people could post blog links, other projects not on GitHub, etc. This would also be good because I could post only my code golf repo's from GitHub on Code Golf.SE, and exclude them from SO.

I like the second solution more, because:

  • it doesn't force the user to use a specific site
  • it's more personal and customizable
  • it's less work
  • it's actually the only option for sites like RPG.SE, where there's not one dedicated hub for all of a user's projects
  • 19
    +1 Please make this available to other sites, and don't limit us to whitelisted hubs. On RPG.SE, which is not techincal/programming, there are people developing their own RPG systems, and I'm working on a tabletop simulator. All of these projects are as significant to us as github projects are to a developer, and none of them have one single hub site in common. Arbitrary links might come with spam concerns, but we can already provide an arbitrary link in our 'website' field. Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04
  • We're going to try to give this a shot. Still thinking about how it's going to work
    – Jeremy T
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 14:46
  • 2
    @Jeremy I'm thinking it could just be a small form for which the user fills out a title, description, link, and optional icon.
    – Doorknob
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 14:58
  • 3
    @JeremyT I think this is pretty important, especially for sites that draw in academic users (Mathematics, Computer Science, Theoretical Computer Science, Physics....) or artists (Photography, Graphic Design...) since they have publications and/or portfolios that they want to show. Hell, even as a hobbyist, I'd like to link to public albums and such of my photographs on Photography (I don't care if that shows up on SO or not). Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 18:39

Badge styling is inconsistent with our existing styles.

enter image description here


enter image description here

And it's easier to distinguish between tags and badges and tag-based badges with the existing styles.

Also, the total count per class is obscured to the point of being unreadable.

enter image description here

Some numbers are even obscured for me.

enter image description here

That number belongs somewhere else.

for those of us who can't see the number at all, here it is in red enter image description here

  • "Obscured" in what sense? Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:13
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit The other per-"class" counts and "progress bars" (don't know what to call those) literally overlap the really light gray number. I can't even read most of the digits on my monitor. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:15
  • I don't understand. It looks fine in all the screenshots you've posted. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:20
  • 7
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit changed the style to red in this shot, you can read those when they're gray? Maybe you just have better eyes... Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:22
  • 21
    Kevin on the contrary, I (and probably @Lightness) don't see that number in the background at all, being very light gray over white (I had to look at the screen in very specific angle, knowing where to look, to see it) so we assumed there's no such number. Agree it's... bad. Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:45
  • 8
    I see. Yeah, I had no idea that number was even there. Would be good to add that picture to your answer. (Right, on another machine with a different white balance, I can just about make it out.) Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:46
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit done Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:56
  • Thanks that's better :) Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 18:58
  • 18
    The bars should just die anyway, they're kind of obnoxious.
    – Tim Stone
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 19:03
  • 6
    +1 I find the chosen method of expressing badges in this draft kinda confusing in general. Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 0:58
  • Personally, I've always found the current badge and tag styling to be extremely boring, though I can't say I'm that excited by the proposed styles either. I've always wanted something really cool-looking with a sorcerer or skeleton for the Necromancer badge, but I suppose that too many badges like that can cause visual clutter, and might offend some people. Still though, not very fun :/
    – user163250
    Commented Apr 3, 2014 at 0:02

Where are all the tag badges?

Nick has like 90-some tag badges. You're showing 6 of them in the "tags" section, and none in the badges section.

Earning a tag badge is a pretty big deal; they really shouldn't be hidden.

Also, how do I view all badges (in a category or in total)? Is this going to integrate into the redesigned badge page in some fashion?


Related to Anna's answer, two requests abut the "about me" block:

  1. Uniform text color please! Graying out on SE means "downvoted" or otherwise "lower priority"; the 2nd or 3rd sentences of my profile hardly qualify. And that gray can be pretty hard for some of us to read, enough that there's a userscript running around to turn it off.

  2. Please don't make me "click to see more". Just give me a scroll bar like now. "Click to see more" suggests a page reload, even if that's not how it's implemented. That's a deterrent. You want us to fill out these "about me" sections, don't you? We all know how scrolling works; please leverage that.


When I look at another user's profile it's often to see how recently he's been around; this affects whether and how I comment on older posts. That's way more valuable to me than "top N% this year" or whatever; I can kinda guesstimate that from the rep, but "has he been here this day/week/month" is not something I can get from (most) other stats. Any chance of getting this info somewhere on the "outsider view" page?

  • 4
    Yeah, "seen X hours ago" is a pretty darn useful field. Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 0:44
  • 2
    This is visible in the left bar below the contact details, above the account list. That said, what used to be the activity tab definitely needs more prominent (or at least accessible) placement.
    – user98085
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 1:21
  • Oh whoops, you're right -- I missed the tiny gray text in the mockup. Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 1:23

Can't the "Apps & Projects" section be left to the user's discretion? Just make the space available and I can choose what I want to put there. On Unix&Linux/Ubuntu/SU, I could put some tools I have written or resources I find useful. On Biology or Academia I could, if I want to go public, include a list of my publications. On English Language Usage a list of interesting quotes, cool words or whatever.

I think that locking the name as "Apps & Projects" and simply removing it from any site that is not SO is a shame, why not just give us the choice of naming it and putting whatever we like there?

  • Damn, exactly what I was going to suggest!
    – Braiam
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 0:36
  • We're going to try to make this work. Just thinking out the details at the moment.
    – Jeremy T
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 14:50
  • @JeremyT great! Much appreciated, thanks.
    – terdon
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 16:59
  • Related answer - it suggested it be called "Projects" instead (or site-specific options). Commented Apr 15, 2014 at 18:55

I would like to show up only to speak for all the other neophytes not yet aware enough to know this is here. This profile looks great, but what would this look like on the majority of the users who don't have all the impressive badges and stats that are in the example image?

From the looks of it, almost everybody here commenting today has an impressive profile.

Some food for thought:

What happens when a user like myself is doing whatever they can to improve their profile, and this new layout has blank spaces all over it that are extremely difficult to fill in? Are most users just going to have a sparse and pathetic looking profile because the new design was made to really showcase an impressive profile and not so much anybody else?

My photo editing abilities are not great, and this information is not at all accurate, but its just to demonstrate what this looks like (or could look like) on an average profile.

enter image description here

Areas that look bad on everybody else

  • Under the "Tags" category, the example shows gold badges and the number of associated answers with that tag. What is displayed when a user like myself has no gold, silver or even bronze badges for any category at all?
  • Apps and Projects for users who don't have any on display leaves an entire quarter of your profile blanked out
  • Badges category consolidates badges for users who have so much flair it's spilling out all over the place. Users like myself kind of need the added support of spreading what few badges we do have out over the page so it doesn't look so pathetic.
  • Questions & Answers won't have badges associated, will they then be ranked by votes?
  • The entire area under the profile picture is sparse for anybody who doesn't work for SO or have all those impressive creds (unless we are able to put our own job titles in which I have not seen).

Needs an edit link.

I know, I know, it'll be on the "dashboard" page, which will be the default view when switching to your own profile. We'll still get questions asking where to find it.

How do I know? We get that now about the stackexchange.com profile pages. You can't edit that page; it's a copy of the information you entered on your oldest site profile - so to edit it, you go to that profile and edit that. You'd think this wouldn't be a problem, given the network profile isn't your default... But folks still end up on it confused that they can't change it.

If you're displaying something the current user can change, make it obvious how they can change it.


The About Me needs to stand out more.

This is one of the more important sections in a profile, for the people who've used it. It's a major opportunity for us to say a lot of stuff which doesn't fit into the regular profile format.

If your goal is to make a profile page which tells us more about a user, your current design of the About Me is counterproductive: all but a couple of lines are effectively hidden, and it's thoroughly de-emphasized to the point that it can be easily missed altogether, despite all the stuff we might have to say in there. This is probably because a lot of things on the page are colourful and attention-grabbing, and the About Me is the only thing that isn't, and in fact fades out.

The About Me matters. Let it show up clearly and stand out, rather than disappear after 2-3 lines!

Consider this rearrangement, for instance, which gives it emphasis again (and, as a total accident, looks pretty familiar!):

rearranged some stuff


Will the green for accepted answers be applied consistently on all pages?

On the question list and on the profile, #75845c is used as the background colour.
question list colour

On the question page, it used to be #5b9058, slightly different but still quite similar.
old question page colour

A while ago this was changed to #46b525, quite a difference.
new question page colour

Now on the new profile even more colours are introduced, #88b73a, #a1d052, and some that I can't reliably determine.
new profile page colour

  • 6
    There is no final decision about styling, but whatever we decide will be applied across the board.
    – Jeremy T
    Commented Mar 20, 2014 at 17:02

Since this is more of an advertising/naval-gazing space, it would also be nice if a graph of reputation could be shown. Perhaps at the bottom of the page lower than the already present content. Further, since there is some extra space and the greatest hits feature is pretty amazing, maybe that could also be placed on the side bar

enter image description here

(p.s. Styling done copy paste from paint, it was just the idea I am suggesting not the exact styles used in this image)

For reference:


The picture is too big. If your userpic is a photo then it's pretty trivial to upload a resized version (if you have the original, of course). But some of us use gravatars that were generated for a specific size, using tools that are no longer available. My gravatar is "me" across the Internet; replacing it with something else on SE interferes with that. But scaling a 100x100 gravatar up to 350x350 (or whatever you end up using) looks terrible. And we can't just add a big white border around it to fit the new size, because the gravatar is scaled down for chat. I don't want to be reduced to a few indistinguishable blue pixels in chat.

If you go for the big image -- and I'm not sure why you want to, as that's more of a social-network thing to do -- then please come up with some reasonable way to handle smaller ones. When the test page was live I plugged my profile into it and, ugh, pixelated badness. Please don't do that to existing users.


How about some customization (for every user)?

The default display can be similar to the one suggested, but then we should (possibly) be:

  • Allowed to display questions and answers separately (versus displaying them together - presumably no option to hide it altogether)

And able to show/hide any of the following sections:

  • About me
  • Badges
  • Tags
  • Votes
  • Bounties
  • Reputation
  • Apps + Projects
  • Top Network Posts (always on the left ... or not)
  • Favourites ?
  • Comments ?
  • ... ?

If you choose to hide everything, it would literally just be a big page consisting of a list of your questions and answers, with the same details on the left as in the draft displayed in the question (with the exception of Top Network Posts).


  • We should be able to freely change the order of the sections, at least to some extent.

  • The sections should resize as appropriate according to the number of selected sections. For instance, the smallest 'Reputation' section size might just display the mini-graph displayed on the current user page, and possibly extend all the way to displaying the full graph with recent reputation changes listed. Some of the other sections have way easier resize ability - just include more/less posts in the Question and Answers, more/less tags under Tags, etc.

    If there isn't more details to add to some section, perhaps it could have a maximum size, allowing other sections to become bigger.

  • Possibly limit the total number of visible sections.

  • Possibly allow users to pick the sizes of the sections, at least to some extent (perhaps percentage distribution of the sections).

  • Possibly allow users to switch their profile view between single- and multi-column.

This is more to present some ideas of a general direction, rather than what I actually expect to be implemented.

If done right, I can't imagine that this will involve too much dev.

I hope the idea is clear enough, as it difficult to create some images or animations for this, as I hope you understand.

This would make many people's profiles look significantly different, which may not appear desirable, but it gives one the ability to display what you deem most important on your profile, rather than forcing us into some format we don't really want, which may end up working out way better for users without too much to display.


And while we are at it, could we add some kind of activity-meter?

A indicator that shows my participation level. A formula could determine my efforts in reviewing, flagging, editing, answering and asking.

I could imagine a number showing the total percentage of my participation or a participation status like Ninja-Editor. Maybe a status calculated of the activities of the current day. So everyone would have a new status every single day.

Such a prominent indicator maybe could give many of us a boost on participation of any kind.

  • 7
    Oh god, no. Let's not pretend we have an all-encompassing empirical formula for what constitutes an "active" user. That'll just lead to people looking for holes in the system to exploit, not to mention the very same harassment as with the accepted rate.
    – user98085
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 0:25
  • 2
    This suggestion is similar to Jeff's good citizenship metric. That discussion didnt really go anywhere, not that the idea is bad, just that the type of user participation we see is far too variable ranging from lurkers, voters, editors and askers/answerers with many users staying squarely within a certain class of participation which is as valuable as someone who does all of the above.
    – asheeshr
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04
  • 17
    I'm much more in favor of task-specific metrics here. If someone asks a lot of questions, tell me how good they are at asking questions; if someone posts a lot of answers, tell me how good they are at answering. Ditto for edits, reviews, whatever - I want to know what you do here and how well you do it, not some generic "participant" level.
    – Shog9
    Commented Mar 21, 2014 at 18:08
  • 8
    @Shog9 ♦ - Reputation 196,772 - Active in: Meta Answers, Chat, Snarkiness. Meta Answers: 9.5/10 (top 0.01% of users), Chat: 0.34 starred messages/hour logged in (top 27% of users), Snarkiness: 11/10 (it goes up to 11). Add infographics or sparklines for impact. Fully agreed.
    – jmac
    Commented Mar 28, 2014 at 2:52

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