15

If you go to https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/flash you will see an adobe logo fest.

The tags list could end up looking like a walk through Tokyo. – random 13 mins ago

Could we have an option to disable just the icons in the tag list and the question tagged pages?

The Sponsored links for this tag would still be present, of course.

This would allow to keep the noise down on the places were the most repetition would take place.

Time to be proactive:

// ==UserScript==
// @name           Remove Icons From Tags
// @namespace      remove_icons_from_tags
// @include        https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/*
// ==/UserScript==

(function(){
    //Function for finding the window's jQuery variable.
    //http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12448/greasemonkey-users-here-is-your-vote-reputation-info-plug-in-for-stackoverflow/12454#12454
    function GM_wait() {
        var daWindow;
        if (window.opera) {
            daWindow=window;
        } else {
            daWindow = unsafeWindow;
        }
        if(typeof daWindow.jQuery == 'undefined') {
            window.setTimeout(GM_wait,100);
        } else {
            jQuery_init(daWindow.jQuery);
        }
    }
    GM_wait();

    function jQuery_init($){
        $(function(){
            $('.post-tag').children().remove();
            alert("hello");
        });
    };
})();

Corrected script

Improve this question
1
  • that script appears to not work with latest GM and FF 3.5.2
    – Paul Nathan
    Sep 30, 2009 at 18:57

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
11

Is this really a good way to spend valuable and limited development resources?

Do we want to have a 100 different options for every little tweak a small handful of users might want?

You're a programmer. You probably use firefox. Go install Greasemonkey and disable them yourself.

__
UPDATE: Okay, so that came across as much more harsh than it should have. Sorry about that. It must have been a bad free-sample day at the grocery store or something.

Improve this answer
4
  • 9
    -1 for the "do it yourself" attitude... They've used "valuable and limited development resources" to put them there in the first place. They could have made it optional from the beginning.
    – fretje
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:29
  • 1
    So... we're expected to add an option for every feature developed? Or, just the features you think should be optional? Greasemonkey was built for this sort of thing.
    – Alex Papadimoulis
    Sep 30, 2009 at 16:04
  • 4
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Not for every feature... but this one is really one I'm sure a lot more than "a small handful of users" would like!
    – fretje
    Sep 30, 2009 at 16:14
  • @Alex: RTFM n00b
    – GEOCHET
    Sep 30, 2009 at 18:48
5

I'd like an option to disable all advertising everywhere. I'll also like to pay less for everything, and have more products and services be free.

Someone's got to pay the bills.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    I'm not saying disable it everywhere, just on places like stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/flash where there will be a lot of replication of the same image all over the place.
    – perbert
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:14
  • 2
    I'm suggesting you're asking for a free lunch. However, you have a point about repitition.
    – user27414
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:18
  • 1
    there's already ads elsewhere on the site, that were fine, with a clear separation between the area of the window that held ads, vs. the area of the window that held non-advertising content. let's keep it separate, please.
    – Jason S
    Oct 20, 2009 at 3:10
0

I disagree. I think if this becomes more common the icons will be less visually jarring, and will actually help you group related tags together visually.

Improve this answer
4
  • 5
    Yeah, until the sponsor stops paying, the icon is removed, and there you are, counting on the icon being there to group related tags together visually... You are mixing functionality with advertisement, always a bad thing me thinks.
    – fretje
    Sep 30, 2009 at 15:28
  • It could revert to something distinctive, but less ad-ish. Perhaps a greyscale version of the logo and you have to pay again to get it in color. (Not sure had that's work for the apple image in the other topic).
    – Joel Coehoorn
    Sep 30, 2009 at 16:07
  • Greyscale or color: it stays advertisement. SO will not put it there if the advertisers don't pay for it (I do hope they won't).
    – fretje
    Sep 30, 2009 at 16:18
  • 4
    I can't see this ever stop being distracting or at least disrupt the clean feel of the site. Very disappointed!
    – Alex Angas
    Sep 30, 2009 at 19:55
0

This question appears to be a duplicate of User script to remove SO sponsored tag advertisements.. Additionally the source code posted is a copy/paste of the code linked in the aforementioned post.

It would be appropriate to credit the original author.

Improve this answer
2
  • Look at the asked time date, the script doesn't do the exact same thing, it leaves the new related links there, and only works on the tagged page because it where the only page were the new icons bothered me. I'm sorry if this offended you. I hadn't even seen your question.
    – perbert
    Oct 1, 2009 at 21:52
  • Oh, sorry, it was yours where i took the initialization, yeah, in that you are right, but its not the same thing still.
    – perbert
    Oct 1, 2009 at 21:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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