In the new email settings, there are four sites shown for the list of sites that will be affected by the settings. The rest are hidden under the "+ more" link.

sites affected

When looking at the four visible sites, I cannot figure out why these specific sites were chosen.

  • The sites are not listed in alphabetical order.
  • The sites are not my four top sites. If that would be the case, I would see the same order that I see on my Network Profile accounts page.
  • This list is not showing the four sites that I visit most often.

Is this list based on site graduation date?
Is this list based on site popularity?

In the current state, the choice does not seem logical. I barely visit Super User or Area 51, and I would really rather see other sites instead of those.

Can the four sites chosen either be based on rep, like the Network Profile list is, or based on alpha order?

  • I can only assume that they are sorted by overall site activity or something like that – Anthony Pham Jul 27 '17 at 21:55
  • @NathanTuggy I never like when question titles wrap to a second line. I also don't know if "can we make it more obvious" makes sense. It is more "can we change it to something more logical". – Tot Zam Jul 28 '17 at 1:06
  • @TotZam: "Obvious" and "logical" are largely synonymous here: something that is obvious to the user is either logical, or doesn't need to be. (I don't like two-line titles either, but I like titles that make no sense with their status-* tags even less.) – Nathan Tuggy Jul 28 '17 at 1:08

I'm afraid it's nothing more complex than the order of the site in our Sites table. The original sites (Stack Overflow = 1, Server Fault = 2, Super User = 3) are always the first few sites.

We could do something more fancy but it was deemed unnecessary for a v1 release. We'll probably do something like rep order when we ship v1.1, the date of which is yet to be decided.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    So is this status-bydesign or status-planned, because I do think rep order would make the most sense? – Tot Zam Jul 28 '17 at 0:00
  • Not sure yet, we haven't decided the most appropriate route; by rep may not even be feasible. I'll change it to status-deferred instead – Dean Ward Jul 28 '17 at 1:11
  • 1
    Rep order would be consistent with the other graphic representations of a user's sites (i.e. flair), in addition to being consistent with the network profile. – Monica Cellio Jul 28 '17 at 2:24

You must log in to answer this question.

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