That list of sites is sorted according to what StackExchange.com considers to be the "default" sort. It's a value calculated per site that's a combination of total question and answer counts, answered %, total users, and daily visits, sorted in the descending order.
((TotalQs + (TotalAs / 3)) * PercentAnswered / 100) + TotalUsers + ...
stackexchange.com is not a Q&A site. It has no reputation and no badges. It only serves as kind of "portal" to the rest of Stack Exchange network of sites.
The profile linked there is known as "network profile" and aggregates information from all associated sites.
Hence, this is totally a status-bydesign case.
This is simply unbelievable. Inadmissible. Unforgivable.
I agree. But, I don't think it's likely that we'll ever develop stackexchange.com into a site that has mechanics for its own badges, though the idea is pretty interesting. But we don't want you to walk away feeling like your hard work at reading the tour went unrecognized, so I made this for you:
To get an updated count, you can run this query on Data Explorer
SELECT count(name) FROM sys.databases
where (name not like '%.Meta' or name = 'StackExchange.Meta')
and database_id > 5
The answer, as of today, is 174, which matches the homepage
As @Xufox notes in the comments, they're sorted case-sensitive and that Р is not a Latin P but a Cyrillic 'R', so it's outside the Latin alphabet. I think that page was created while all Stack Exchange sites started with a Latin capital letter.
It does make sense to sort elementary OS between Electrical Engineering and Emacs, but Русский язык will never fit ...
This isn't a bug, it's status-bydesign. The code to search looks for any of the following:
URL or Host Address
Since stack is a part of all of the URLs for most of the sites on the network it is filtering as expected.
The easy way would be to see if the "Top Users" page was archived somewhere. Here is an example of such a page. But you don't always get lucky with that.
Data dumps for most (but not all) of Stack Overflow's history can be found here.
You then should be able to run the following query by conradfrix on that data to get the rankings:
-- tag rankings
Achievements aren’t synced across all sites.
Achievements show your knowledge so if you know a lot on Site A and not a lot on Site B there’s not really a point as it would be:
Confusing, people thinking what Site you earned it on.
Misleading, people thinking you are an expert on the subject when you’re not.
Unworthy, you feel proud of achievements on a ...
What I have observed here is, when you sign up with Stack Overflow, an account on Stack Exchange automatically created, also you don't need to join Stack Exchange website explicitly. Therefore, there is no profile information available for Stack Exchange account as it is the network of all.
So, if you want to edit your profile name you can do it for all ...
No, unfortunately the order can't be changed and it is unspecified what the order is. (When I add a created: search option the order becomes newest first but that is likely a coincidence, not a feature)
You can however use the advanced search options
"delivery address" is:q -[shop] -[php] created:10d..
to limit the results from across all sites to a ...
Yes, we should do this. I am even proposing a step further: replace the HNQ list in the sidebar with the featured site.
One of the key goals of the HNQ is site promotion.
Replacing it would have two advantages:
New users would learn about the Stack Exchange network.
There would be no confusion due to “strange” titles that are displayed out of context.
It's using a complex formula which is mentioned in this other answer:
((TotalQs + (TotalAs / 3)) * PercentAnswered / 100) + TotalUsers + VisitsPerDay
So the "Top Network Sites" is a list of the top 10 sites after sorting all sites using that formula.
It happens for any search with many results on almost all of the sort orders on the page. You only lose the "bumpy ride" when you sort the page by site age (which is also site number).
I don't know exactly how that page is created but my guess is that the sorting is done in a way that doesn't change the reference order of the content on the page, only its ...
Following the suggestions in some of the comments, I'm offering this to those that could use it:
// @name Hide SE site from Hot Questions
// @namespace stackexchange
// @description Hide certain Stack Exchange sites from the Hot Network Questions list.
// @match https://stackexchange.com/*
// @match https://stackexchange....
Looks like you only can go to:
So add a ?filter=comments, even though it looks ugly :-)
But I still agree with your point, this isn't the best yet.
I am surprised this is still an issue 5 years later. It can be realy annoying sometimes, to double check you have read everything.
I have made a litte mockup, how it could look like:
Please consider give the user some feedback about what is read and what it is not.