The StackExchange™ MultiCollider SuperDropdown™ says I've got replies, but I've already viewed those.

  • 4
    status-bydesign I think (or status-wontfix)
    – Pekka
    Commented Oct 18, 2010 at 20:22
  • 1
    I agree. It would be nice if this was fixed on the StackExchange network. Commented Oct 18, 2010 at 20:26
  • which type of replies? chat? questions? comments? Commented Oct 18, 2010 at 20:42

1 Answer 1


I assume you're referring to how the inbox "number" remains even if you view the questions/answers/comments referred to in the new inbox items.

This is by design.

The number is the number of items added to the inbox since you last viewed the inbox, it does not (and will never) care about when you last viewed any of the items referred to by its contents.

  • 2
    Sorta makes sense, but I do see a number > 0 and click and get nothing at all in the list. Temporal time-and-space super-collider Higgs boson anomaly, no doubt. Glad it is real, been rooting for it. I don't think it is a problem, I haven't been missing real notifications at all lately. Good job and thanks for making it happen. Commented Oct 18, 2010 at 23:13
  • 6
    I think he is referring to if you view a question/answer/comment on SO and the number remains at the top left on the StackExchange drop down. It is inconsistent. It's just one extra place to click to "clear the status" for us OCD folks ;) Commented Oct 19, 2010 at 15:07
  • Yep, what @Changeling said. Commented Oct 21, 2010 at 15:57
  • I think it's not optimal. My app would post notification when user gets a new inbox message (comment, answer). User can click on the notification to jump directly to the page. But the unread count remains. After reading the real content of the message (comment, answer), user have to click the inbox button extra to "read" the inbox message again. Is there any way to solve this problem?
    – zavié
    Commented Aug 16, 2012 at 22:59
  • 6
    Can we stop "resolving" bugs as "by design" when the bug is in the design itself? It's quite obviously stupid to have the inbox count read items as unread just because I didn't read them in the inbox. Why would I care about those? I've already read them. Commented Jul 25, 2013 at 13:05
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit the concern here is most probably to resist overcomplicating things. Read: "we are not ready to introduce this level of complexity (yet)". Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 21:01
  • @ivan_pozdeev: Then that's status-declined, and still just as sad. :( From a usability point of view, the current mechanism is far more complicated than "read"/"unread" actually meaning what it says on the tin. Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 21:03
  • @LightnessRacesinOrbit did you notice the word "yet"? This was 5 years ago. Help determine the possible toll on the system, and it might turn out to be not as bad as it seems. Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 21:10
  • @ivan_pozdeev: The fact that it was 5 years ago makes me question the importance of your use of the word "yet". Commented Nov 21, 2015 at 21:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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