I want to exclude from my search all the results that would normally come up from searching with user:me. I see from this question: Exclude specific words in stackoverflow search that there is no "NOT" operator for searches.

However since there is a "is accepted" and a "not accepted", I think a "not user" option would make perfect sense?

Example of use expected use:

It would be added in combination with other filters when searching through a specific tag or topic in order to filter out questions that the user has already answered. Especially in cases where a user is very active in that tag.

  • 3
    There isn't a way, but you could turn this into a [feature-request] if you're going to put a bounty on it. It'd be nice to just have a generic NOT operator Mar 7, 2011 at 3:12
  • @Michael, I had mentioned the feature request for the NOT operator already. I was thinking this is like the "is accepted" search option, where there should be a "Not user" option. Anyway, I think you are right so I have changed this to a feature request.
    – jzd
    Mar 7, 2011 at 13:15
  • I don't understand why this would be useful? This is the first time it's ever been requested in 3 years that I know of. Mar 10, 2011 at 8:32
  • 2
    @Jeff, this is not useful by itself. But in combination with other filters is where I would use it. Specifically when I am searching through a specific tag or topic that I spend a lot of time in, I find my results get filled with questions I have already answered. I would like to eliminate those so I can find questions in that topic that I haven't answered yet.
    – jzd
    Mar 10, 2011 at 11:57

2 Answers 2


Ideally, I think we should have option to exclude specific users, same way we can exclude tags.

e.g. -user:155084 is:a [search] search term will give all answers on questions, posted by all users except user with ID of 155084.

So -user:me will be a shortcut, using ID of currently logged in user.

  • I can’t think of a single case of the need to use any specific user except “mine”. Only if for consistency. Dec 5, 2017 at 20:30

Sure, why not user:others?

(This could be extended to some criteria like user:♦ or user:10k although rep/mod status shouldn't state anything useful here I guess)

  • 1
    Maybe it should be user:mod so there is no awkward copy-pasting or Unicode codepoints?
    – nanofarad
    Nov 24, 2012 at 21:37
  • 2
    @ObsessiveSSOℲ Oh come on, where's the point in making stalking your favourite mod too comfortable? :-P Nov 24, 2012 at 23:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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