Currently, I am not looking for a job (nor will I be in the near future), but the job posting is the most prominent, boldly colored thing on the page.

It is not generally desirable to have the most prominent object on a page also be the most irrelevant.

I would like to request the addition of a "hide" button to the job posting pane, that reduces the pane to unobtrusive transparent-background light-colored text (clicking on it could re-expand the pane, if I ever find myself unemployed in the future).

The hidden / visible state should at minimum be persistent across uses on the same browser (e.g. a cookie).

Here is the orange version:

enter image description here

  • 1
    I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that SE generates revenue from those postings from the companies that are listed there. (1)Just because you can hide/block/obscure advertisements doesn't mean you should and (2)SE probably doesn't want you to. – AstroCB Jul 19 '14 at 0:21
  • 2
    @AstroCB If somebody from SE confirms that they generate revenue from that job posting ad then I will most certainly agree to live with it without complaint. Impressions, not clicks. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 0:23
  • I'm not from SE, but they undoubtedly generate revenue from it. It's nothing more than advertising. – JKillian Jul 19 '14 at 0:49
  • 3
    @JKillian It's all just content from careers.so. AFAICT they generate fixed revenue per listing, regardless of whether I see it or click it or ignore it. And since it's irrelevant to me and anybody not looking for a job (but certainly not to others who are looking for jobs) I am requesting the ability to hide it, or at least to make it not be the loudest item on the site. At best it is mis-targeted advertising. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 0:53
  • Don't disagree with you at all on that - I'd be happy to hide it as well. The more users who see it, the better I'm assuming though, as more successful postings == can charge more for postings I'm thinking. – JKillian Jul 19 '14 at 0:57
  • 2
    To me it's just wasted space as well. Mainly because I've never seen it show a listing for the kind of job I would be interested in. – Reto Koradi Jul 19 '14 at 1:48
  • 1
    @RetoKoradi The fact that it does not seem to be related to any of the tags a user participates in seems to be an additional level of mis-targeting. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 1:52
  • 3
    SE is a for-profit corporation, and how they decide to promote their revenue stream is up to them. If the ads bother you too much, you have a couple of choices: 1) Take your business elsewhere, or 2) install an ad-blocker. Expecting them to hide a revenue stream on a commercial (for-profit) site is a little unreasonable, unless you're willing to start paying for your account here in order to support the site. After all, someone has to pay for the employees, servers, and bandwidth. I don't find the ads that annoying; I pay attention to content instead. – Ken White Jul 19 '14 at 3:53
  • 5
    @KenWhite Sure; but it's not a revenue stream from users who aren't looking for a new job; at least they're not getting click-throughs on it, so why force it? Otherwise I would accept it as a cost to support them. I would happily pay a monthly rate to not have that ad displayed (even if AdBlock is a solution for free) because I both don't care about the ad and do support SE. My point is the ad is both irrelevant and intrusive and has no reason to be there, for me. I would take irrelevant ads. I would take non-intrusive ads. But the combo is just a pointless use of bandwidth and eye strain. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 4:00
  • 6
    But it's a revenue stream for SE. I'm not looking for a job either, but there might be someone who isn't looking but happens to see one that catches their eye even when they're not looking. If it's not there to see, that can't happen, and the fact that it's there costs you nothing (so accept it as a cost to support them). My point is that it's their revenue stream - why should they offer users a chance to turn it off? The bandwidth is negligible (you've wasted more here complaining and commenting than it probably consumes in a month), and it doesn't blink or play Flash constantly. – Ken White Jul 19 '14 at 4:06
  • @jasonc - Another factor in you seeing job ads is that we do not work with ad networks or sell our inventory at low rates just to generate revenue. We try to keep all ads relevant to the audience. We use unsold inventory to promote other sites, careers and job postings. While the job listings may not be relevant to you, they are more relevant than the ads you'd be seeing if we sold excess inventory to ad networks. – Danny Miller Jul 21 '14 at 20:09
  • Consider displaying career ads every X page views instead of on all of them. Not sure if that is how it is supposed to be, but at least in my case they were showing up on every page load. – user282657 Apr 22 '15 at 16:16

Personally, I've upvoted the other answers, but if these ads really bug you, install Adblock and block the following URL:


Ads be gone!

  • 5
    Usually I like to leave ads just to help out a site, but this one's getting a solid boot. Thanks! – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 2:11
  • 1
    This doesn't seem to be working any more for me. I'm sure there's a better way but for now adding stackoverflow.com##DIV[id="hireme"] to the adblock filter for each of the site works at least, for both blue and orange. – Jason C Feb 17 '15 at 5:54
  • 2
    @JasonC yup, it does seem to have changed names! You don't need to specify the site to block on though, just go ahead and block the whole div#hireme element on all sites. In Chrome you can right click the "ad" and choose Adblock > Block this ad, then just move the slider to select it. – Danny Beckett Feb 17 '15 at 22:29

Yes, the ads are revenue generating for us. They advertise the listings on Careers. As far as I know there's no plans to allow users to hide the ad.

We've A/B tested lots of ads lately and that one by far, out performed everything we've tested. (I think there's also a blue one out there that does really well).

In the end, this is why we have meta. If everyone really, really hates the ads that much, let the votes decide!

  • 2
    I don't understand how the color choice affects my decision to click on it when I'm not looking for a job. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 1:39
  • 2
    (And I didn't mean to imply that I found orange to be any more or less irrelevant than the blue one; they're both equally mis-targeted, it's just the orange one gave me a post title that I liked better.) (And it's a bit disingenuous to pretend you'd remove it even if this post did end up getting up-voted to high heaven.) – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 1:47
  • 2
    @JasonC I never said we'd consider removing them. Your post, to me, seemed like you took issue with the bright color and the way it stood out. If this garnered a significant amount of votes, we'd certainly take a second look at redesigning the ad. – Juice Jul 19 '14 at 1:52
  • 2
    They're linked. Both colors stand out and are distracting. Additionally, the ad is irrelevant (not only because I'm not looking for a job, but to a lesser extent because it seems unrelated to the tags I participate in). Either of these alone would be acceptable (or if SE was making impression revenue, I would happily accept that as a cost); but both together = why is this even on my screen? That's actually an interesting question in itself: What is your intention in putting that ad on my (personally) screen (and virtually slapping me in the face with it every time I come here to boot)? – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 1:55
  • 5
    I agree with @JasonC that the ads are sometimes (but not always) irrelevant to me, because they won't be in tags that I'm active in answering. Some of them are even tagged with technologies that I've explicitly marked as uninteresting in my Careers 2.0 profile. I agree that that is a waste of screen real-estate, and my viewing time. – TheWarriorNamedFoo Jul 19 '14 at 1:58
  • 2
    @JasonC It seems you need Adblock. It's extremely common practise for websites to "put ads on your (personal) screen (and virtually slap you in the face with it)". – Danny Beckett Jul 19 '14 at 2:00
  • 3
    @JasonC Actually that's exactly what they are - hosted ads: the URL to block in Adblock is http://static.adzerk.net/ados.js – Danny Beckett Jul 19 '14 at 2:06
  • 2
    @DannyBeckett Post that as an answer. I actually try to leave ads on when possible but this one's getting the boot. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 2:06
  • 2
    I think this can be safely declined now. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Feb 1 '15 at 15:45
  • 1
    Why aren't the ads better targeted at the user's active tags? I'd click JavaScript ads, but Ruby on Rails leaves me cold. – Dan Dascalescu Feb 28 '15 at 1:09
  • 1
    "out performed everything [you]'ve tested" in what exactly? Click-through or user annoyance? Perhaps it would be okay to lose some clicks to avoid driving your customer base nuts. I do wonder if in the long run this will have a nefarious effect and cause the product (i.e. us) to start leaving. – user282657 Apr 22 '15 at 16:10

I'm highly against this feature request, because having the job pane always on display allows users to see new and interesting job listings while they're at work, without fear of being caught by someone looking over their shoulder.

Let me explain

In a typical week, when I'm viewing Stack Overflow, it's going to be while I'm at my job. I'm not going to spend a lot of my time outside of work on the site (usually). So the best opportunity for me to see job listings is while I'm at work.

The problem with giving users the option of hiding the job pane is that people in your office will now be able to tell that you're looking for another job while using Stack Overflow at work, because if you weren't looking for another job, you wouldn't need to see the job pane, you would be hiding it. Granted, you could fake the excuse that you didn't know that you could hide the job pane, but let's be honest, being put in a position where you have to fake an excuse as to why it looks like you're looking for another job isn't very good.

Having users see job listings while at work is good for Stack Exchange

I also want to point out that it could potentially be better for Stack Exchange if users were able to see new and interesting job listings while at work. What better time to show users new jobs than while they're unhappily slaving away at their current ones?

Being forced to see those job listings while at work is a godsend. It gives people hope that maybe, just maybe, their lives don't have to be so miserable at their current jobs.

  • 7
    Wow. My answer may be official, but this answer is way better written. – Juice Jul 19 '14 at 1:37
  • 2
    The fundamental flaw here is that you see the only possible "excuse" as "not knowing you could hide it", and you see that excuse as fake (and thus you have reduced this to either a) you hide it or b) you must necessarily be making fake excuses). A perfectly valid and non-fake excuse is not caring enough about it to hide it. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 1:41
  • @JasonC some people are just terrible liars. – TheWarriorNamedFoo Jul 19 '14 at 1:42
  • 6
    Can you tell just from the title/location if a listing will be interesting to you? And do your remember to go find it later when you're at home? Because I figure that you wouldn't actually click on a link for the details in your scenario. – Reto Koradi Jul 19 '14 at 1:43
  • 2
    @TheWarriorNamedFoo So if I had an office job and I were at it, with the current unhidable ad, and my boss said "Why haven't you created a Greasemonkey script to hide the job ads?" would all answers be fake excuses? And as Reto just mentioned it's not like you'd be able to follow up anyways. At some point you'll have to revisit the site while not at work, which invalidates most of this anyways. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 1:43
  • 2
    @RetoKoradi it's been my experience that I don't necessarily need to actually click on the job link to find something interesting, just the title and location are enough. Plus some of the listings also list the technologies used. Also, there are ways to save links without needing to actually click through to them. – TheWarriorNamedFoo Jul 19 '14 at 1:45
  • 1
    @TheWarriorNamedFoo Besides, if you are spending so much time on SE that your boss can actually get an accurate enough sampling of you with the job ad on your screen to incriminate you, you're probably spending too much time there at work, and you should probably expect a reprimand anyways, ad or not. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 2:02
  • 2
    @JasonC I'm a professional, I don't spend my time at work irresponsibly. When I'm on Stack Overflow at the office, it's purely for work. But it's nice to be able to get those little glimpses of hope every now and again while I'm there. It helps me get through my day. – TheWarriorNamedFoo Jul 19 '14 at 2:05
  • 1
    So based on @DannyBeckett's observation in another comment, I would imagine you should add "Why have you not added http://static.adzerk.net/ados.js to your block list?" as a valid question with a fake excuse answer. – Jason C Jul 19 '14 at 2:08
  • This sound like an excuse for not removing this box. If I want to find a new job, then I do that at home when I can concentrate on finding jobs. People who want to get rid of this will find a way to do it. – Bevor Jan 2 '17 at 9:23
  • This is nothing SO has to concern about. It has some Google/Microsoft smell where they think they know better what users want. – Bevor Jan 2 '17 at 9:28

Here's what worked for me, on Firefox using AdblockPlus 2.6.7

In AdblockPlus, click on "Filter Preferences..."

enter image description here

  1. Click on Find
  2. Type in domain=stackoverflow.com
  3. Find all the matching exception rules and uncheck their checkboxes

I found two exception rules, and I unchecked them


In AdblockPlus, if a filter rule starts with @@, then it is an exception rule, that lets ads through rather than blocking them. So, you want to find those exceptions, and disable them. That will allow AdblockPlus to block the "Looking for a Job?" ad.

Updated 2/26/2015

Recently, the Careers sidebar reappeared. I added this adblocking rule to zap it once again.


You must log in to answer this question.

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