There are questions similar to this one, but they were asked before the new  feature. The answers on the older questions are outdated and simply suggest "just don't log in to the other site", however this is no longer possible.    And the older questions do not put this forward.    So due to now being automatically logged in, we no longer have the choice to not show if we're active on a site by not logging in to it.    Proposal  I suggest an option for users to hide the 'last seen' info from the public profile, in order to give them control over their private information regarding their online habits.
123041
Possible Duplicate:          Some people don't like being spied on by bosses or others, or revealing the frequency and intensity of their participation on SE sites.  Is an option to hide "seen" and similar fields on the summary page viable? Or, could the field be changed to day-level granularity?
116682
I understand the desire to keep a closed question around for Google or SO Search purposes, or when a question is a dupe, or has been moved to "(sister site)" and therefore I don't want the to be deleted.  However as a user of the site, logged in, looking to help someone out (or just gain some rep) answering questions, the [Closed] questions just become noise.     Would you consider an option (for logged in users) to not show Closed questions,   unless running a search?   e.g. if I search for "IE getElementById error" then please show the closed questions as they may be helpful.  However when just going to the Questions page... p2, p3, p4, p5 etc. I'd rather not see those questions as typically they are the "Spam, Not a real question, or Belongs on Sister site" questions... all of which I'm not interested in.  Alternatively any chance they could be styled similar to "ignored tag" questions where they are almost faded out?
48096
While it's great to have the ability to clear all session cookies for all devices, I'd like the ability to log out on one computer only, and not come home to have to relogin on all of my devices. It can really be a pain.   Is there a technical reason we don't have this, or why don't we?
73801
Currently, moderators have the ability to reset a user's username and/or profile text, and propagate that to the rest of the network, resetting it everywhere. However, often, the user's stackexchange.com network profile will also need to be reset, and this is currently only possible to do by either the user in question or staff.  Instead of bothering staff every time, moderators should have something available similar to chat, where moderators can change a user's parent site and have access to a "refresh profile" button, which will fetch updated information such as username and avatar from the parent site.  Currently, the only thing that moderators can do on stackexchange.com is to see hidden accounts. It would make sense for moderators to be able to refresh profiles there, like chat, and avoid pinging CMs every time this comes up.
2356
On most Stack Exchange sites, when I visit them I am already logged in if I have logged in before. Why isn't it the case with ?
121558
I noticed , with a network-wide suspension. They've filled their profile clear full of spam links, and the thing that delinks links in suspended profiles is working on per-site profiles. But on his , the links are still links. They're nofollowed, but users can still (accidentally?) click them. Can we unlink them on the network profile too? If they deserved a network suspension, they likely can't be trusted with clickable links either.
1179
Is a "log out from every SE site in the network" button technically feasible?  With so many SE sites popping up, it would be a very useful feature.  Edit: has this been implemented now, as @Ben suggests in his comment? I've lost track.
100231
When solving this issue (  ), I did a function so that the plugin would auto-hide from all users except one (me:).  The flaw is that it only auto-hides when active.  At first, it was a mu-plugin, but I had to enable/disable it manually. It really doesn't need to run all the time, as it may slow the site (?) or even contain some sensitive manipulation of the site's language (another question mark).  But mainly the motivation is that I don't want the client activating/deactivating/deleting this plugin (is for my own use), and don't want it cluttering her own plugins list.  So, decided to split the functions in two plugins:   One is a Must-Use used to hide the regular one.  The other will be activated/deactivated upon necessity and is the one from the above linked issue.   But now I run into another question: how to hide one plugin from the Must-Use listing?
46510
I've just noticed that someone can Google my name and instantly know If I'm on Stack Overflow, because it shows the "seen 6 minutes ago."  It's shown on the results screen, the searcher doesn't even have to click the search result.  Aside from having respect for Google search and feelings of joy for Stack Overflow getting good ratings there, I find it a bit "big-brother" creepy.  Why do we need "last seen," anyway?  At a minimum I'd expect it to keep track using dates, not exact times.  But it should be removed altogether.
106664
With the addition of Server Fault and the future addition of Super User, I can imagine it gets relatively hard to keep track of all that is going on without having three windows open at the same time and constantly refreshing each of your recent activity pages.  Would it be possible/feasible to create some sort of mini-site that would allow a user to keep track of their account statistics over all the sites and see the recent activity on them (new comments, answers, rep gains/losses, etc.) in one place?  All I am really looking for is almost a clone of the current Recent Activity page (the one you click on the envelope to get to) that would show the activity from all the sites (as long as you have them linked, such as with the same OpenID).   If you wanted to take it another step forward, you could take the personal profile page and modify it to allow for the inclusion of all sites at one time as well.
8382
Having a record of all actions taken on a site, as is provided by the &quot;activity&quot; and &quot;votes&quot; tabs of our profile, comes in handy very often. Perhaps the most common case is being able to find a question I've interacted with in the past, to see if anything has changed about it. This applies to questions a user has protected as much as anything else. Users are theoretically encouraged to unprotect questions when it's no longer necessary, as emphasized , but in practice they often do not. In many cases it's hard to blame them: unless they specifically marked it as a favourite, the site doesn't keep any record of the question to allow them to find it again. We should help users more easily review their own protections in the future.    For personal review, the votes tab is adequate, but there may also be value in displaying this publicly in the activity tab. There may be users with a history of repeatedly protecting questions over-eagerly. It would be useful to be able to review other users' protection histories to see if this is the case. Even if this is not available to regular users, it may be helpful to moderators, unless their user activity views already allow them to filter down to see this.
111886
I discovered a new tab in my user profile.      Very useful. I have always wished such an overview so that it can help me to trackback my downvotes so that I can if necessary undo them.  But I was wondering, can moderators see them for each other user?
100240
When getting audited in the review queues, it's often extremely obvious. If the date that a question or answer was posted is more than 20-25 minutes ago it's not going to be a new First Post or Late Answer.  This enables the wily user to be extra careful when reviewing these posts and pass audits easily.  For instance, this is obviously a real review:        This one is a fake:        Removing the time/user card completely would almost completely stop people being able to dodge audits. They'd have to click on every question and open it in a new tab, which would be unbelievably tedious; surely no one will do that 1,000 times?  I added the user card as an option because it might be easier, and the reputation of the poster shouldn't really be a factor in the outcome of a review.
51732
Update (Jan 8, 2019) This is now 8 years old, but still getting occasional upvotes/attention, so I thought it's worth giving a summary of the current state.  Despite originally being , over the last decade some changes have made the privacy implications much clearer.  You now click &quot;share&quot; instead of &quot;link&quot;, and the pop-up is very explicit that the link includes your user ID. There is a  asking that this user ID be anonymized or hashed, to allow users to earn publicity badges (the intention behind having the user ID present in the URL, as per ) while eliminating the privacy issue. Original Post It seems to me there is something of a privacy leak when permalinking to a question.  For what I would assume is the purposes of tracking which user is responsible for bringing traffic back to an SE site (for badges, etc.), the user ID of the user obtaining the permanent link . I wouldn't argue that this shouldn't be the case, but I find no warning or mention of this when I do these actions.  I'm sure I'm not the only one that doesn't desire anonymity on SO but would like at least pseudonymity on some places I might share a SO link, such as on a random blog.  As a user, I would not expect sharing a permanent link to leak my identity.   Unless you are familiar with Stack Exchange links or your own userID, it's certainly not obvious by looking at the link that it includes your personal info.  It'd be nice to have fair warning that using that feature will do so, and perhaps provide/describe the workaround: to simply remove the user-id segment from the URL.  Other features would be a preference that formats future permanent links to exclude the user id. Example (from this question)  Permalink:  Link to my user page:
98395
Sometimes users accidentally post credentials or sensitive information in their posts. Although it's easy to edit those post then, the revision list will still show that information.   Deleting the post would be an option, but I assume it will also be somewhat annoying to users, even if it's for their own security. Plus, 10k+ users would still be able to see the post anyway. Our current approach is to ping a community manager who will then destroy the revision. Until that happens, the user's credentials are vulnerable to theft. Thus, to be able to better protect our users and react more quickly, moderators should be able to hide revisions. That would be like providing first aid until the doctor comes.  Possible implementations could be to have a link at each revision to hide the revision (maybe with possible undo). Or a link to flag them to Community managers, which would then hide the revisions until handled and also takes care of the pinging.   To go along with that, we could also introduce a separate flag reason for users that says "Contains credentials, private information or malware". These flags could then show up in the mod flag queue. Since we could filter for those then, we could give them priority handling instead of stumbling over them in "Other".  Note: there is a similar feature request in  already, but it asks for a user privilege, not a mod-tool. The Accepted Answer suggests to flag such posts. But like explained above, that doesn't help when moderators have to escalate this to a community manager as well.   Note: There is also . It addresses the same problem, but suggests a different implementation. Personally, I'd like hiding better than hard deletion by consensus. We cannot really hard delete anything so hiding would be in accordance with our other options. Also, when the aim is to protect a user quickly, we should be able to take action without having to wait for a consensus.
54294
There has been some recent behavior change on SE (around July 2015).  I have two accounts I use, one Google openId based for one set of sites (call it Account-A) and another SE login based for a different set of sites (Account-B).  Used to be that I could be logged into one set of sites with the first user and a different set with the other users.    But now I am logged in with the Account-A on Site-1.  When I go to one of the sites I use the other account for and click "log in" under the SE menu, I go to a page where I only have an option to confirm creation of an account based on my Google login.  It does not present a way to log in with an SE account.    How can I log in with my other account here?  (and before you flag this as a duplicate, please ensure the other question is recent enough and that the answer is relevant.  This behavior has definitely morphed over the years... and I am having trouble finding something that is relevant.  For instance this question  simply points out how to merge the accounts which is NOT what I want  .  This question  talks about presenting different user info on each site but that's not what I want -- I want totally separate accounts).
104800
In my profile I saw this:     Accounts (48) - 1 hidden account   as seen in this image:        So, what is this "hidden account"? And how do I see it?