6

For regular chat feeds, if a question has more than one tag for which a subscription has been made for a feed, the question still only gets one-boxed once.

However for ticker feeds the question seems to get duplicated as in this example:

Image showing the same question duplicated on the feed ticker

Here's an example where the item was triplicated:

Image showing the same question appearing three times in a row in the feed ticker

For people that have had the room open in a tab for a whole day while working on things in other tabs, the list can get quite long. This room was used to produce the examples in this post.

Prior research before asking: I searched here on Meta.SE but only 10 questions had been asked about ticker feeds and none of them are about this duplication of items.

5
  • 1
    The edit you reverted was an objective improvement. The addition of alt text/image descriptions is always welcome for users with browser images off, or visually impaired users. For what reason did you reject it? – Spevacus Jun 3 at 17:41
  • 1
    @Spevacus (1) OPs are allowed to reject edits. (2) There was zero objective improvement in my opinion when changing "The room from which I took these examples is this one" versus "This room was used to produce the examples in this post." Would you agree? I personally do not like when people make edits like that on my posts, and combined with the fact that (3) I wasn't aware that image descriptions are helpful for visually impaired users (do you know how many we have? and yes if the image description is being read, then it's helpful, but you really need to see the images themselves), nor that – user1271772 Jun 3 at 18:24
  • 1
    there's people with browser images turned off (do you have some idea how many people do that?), (4) the user that made the edit had a reputation of 9, and no other accounts. Seems like some experienced user's sockpuppet trying to get enough rep to start doing things like downvoting and such. I'm strongly against sockpuppets (it's just a personal thing). I have kept the edit of @Zoethe1337Princess since you pointed out to me that image descriptions are helpful for blind people and people with images turned off (which I hadn't thought of before), but I'm not quite happy with the second part. – user1271772 Jun 3 at 18:27
  • 1
    (1) Of course they are. (2) I'm inclined to agree. I personally would see no problem with you adjusting the wording back to what it was before, my main contention was with the image descriptions. I should have been more specific. (3) I don't have metrics that reflect the number of users who are visually impaired or access from browsers that have images disabled, but it's been recognized by both the community and SE staff that entering good alt text represents a great accessibility improvement. I apologize that I can't back that up with stats. – Spevacus Jun 3 at 18:37
  • 1
    @Spevacus Yea I have no doubt that image descriptions are encouraged for those reasons, I'm just a bit skeptical about how much they actually would help in this case (you really need to see the images to see what's going on, and I've never heard of anyone reading Meta.SE via audio) ... but, adding the image description does not harm so I'm ok with the edit. I'm getting concerned about the user "Starship" who created an account today (only on MSE) and is hunting edits like these to do in order to get enough rep to do other things. I acknowledge that socks are allowed, but I don't like it. – user1271772 Jun 3 at 19:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .