6

This question already has an answer here:

I really love the "Hot Network Questions" (HNQ) as I love to look at what other communities do; in german I would say "Ich liebe es, über den Tellerrand zu schauen" (Love looking beyond my own's backyard?)

However: Most of the time, I discover hot questions while loading another site (i.e. when I am forced to look around), and this imposes problems and makes the feature almost unusable for me. This is my typical workflow for HNQ-usage:

  • Grasp topic "How to foo the bar"
  • Done or Clicking some link leading me to further details about Frob
  • This is the moment I have a quick glance on the HNQ
    • I see some interesting "What's a John?" from a foreign field Doe D'Oh
    • Whoosh, the page load completes and I think "Oh noes, but I was interested in "What's a John?"
    • go-back-one-page
    • "Oh no, it's gone."
    • "Ah I know, search for the topic using the search-box"
    • Argh, this ain't work. I don't find it. Let's hope it pops up again

My proposal now is (sorry if I miss the proper terminology):

Make the HNQ permament w.r.t. the history, i.e. when you click go-back/forward, it should show the same questions from when you initially loaded this entry in the history


edit: A dupe was proposed. However, it talks about page-reload. I think randomization is okay upon reload and loading a new instance; changing contents is what we reload for. I really look for staticness w.r.t. to a single "page-instance", when navigating forward and backward again.

marked as duplicate by Martijn Pieters, Servy, Frédéric Hamidi, ProgramFOX, hims056 Apr 10 '14 at 17:33

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.

  • 1
    <strike>Duplicates welcome. I missed to look for "Randomness".</strike> edit: However, I have no problem with randomizing on page-reload; that's what a page-reload is for. But navigation forward and backward shouldn't change the contents, imho. – phresnel Apr 10 '14 at 15:22
  • @BillyMailman: Yeah, that seems to fit. Now I think I have another feature proposal ... – phresnel Apr 10 '14 at 15:31
  • The first "dupe" is not a dupe at all. Very poor choice to include that link here, as I nearly requested a fix for this yet again. – RomanSt Jun 7 '14 at 0:08