-100

On February 24th, 2026, we released the new site design and philosophy on beta.stackoverflow.com.

We released the beta site early so we could build, gather feedback, and improve the experience alongside the community. As we expected with a beta release, you may have encountered bugs and experiments still in progress. Thank you to everyone who explored and shared feedback so far.

Since the beta launch, we’ve been reviewing feedback and bug reports from Meta and the “Help improve beta” survey. This post tracks notable recent bug fixes, improvements, and changes we’ve made, and we’ll continue to regularly update this post as additional fixes and updates are released.

March 10, 2026 Bug fixes and updates

  • Fixed issue to prevent answers on closed questions (link)
  • Fixed the popular unanswered questions widget that prevented sidebar rendering
  • Fixed rendering issue with editor impacting bold and italic text (link)
  • Fixed issue with some links returning a 404 error
  • Fixed issue with profile tab not displaying properly
  • Fixed issues with inconsistencies and invalid colors (link)
  • Fixed rendering of the "Select next badge" modal
  • Fixed syntax highlighting for code snippets when using dark mode
  • Fixed button colors on the user's profile page (link)
  • Fixed profile page buttons having a black underline (link)
  • Fixed issues with ads not rendering properly
  • Adjusted the “Try new site BETA” button covering other items in the mobile view (link)
  • Updated Stack Overflow logo on top left navigation from black to orange

Note: we’ve provided a link to the related Meta post when possible

31
  • 65
    Any plans to address community feedback beyond fixing clear bugs? And why was the main announcement post unfeatured Commented Mar 10 at 22:56
  • 79
    Feels a lot like you're rewiring a working light switch while the house is on fire. As Starship noted these are all very straightforward fixes (that arguably should have been caught long before even a beta release through basic testing) and don't address any of the larger issues of question quality, curation, and the massive UX disaster of the new design. Commented Mar 10 at 23:09
  • 69
    The original post for the beta design currently has a 3.8% approval rating. It's nice that you've fixed bugs here, but making zero mention of the elephant in the room which is that virtually nobody wants this redesign in the first place feels disingenuous. Why fix bugs in an unwanted product that threatens to regress basically all of SO's value built up over the past couple decades? Commented Mar 10 at 23:35
  • 70
    You are wasting your time. We will not use the site proposed in the beta. Commented Mar 11 at 7:09
  • 16
    Read the room... Commented Mar 11 at 8:59
  • 11
    When are you going to fix the main issues? You know, the one about your users not wanting these discussion styles? The one about the hideous overall design and reddit rip-off? The one about lack of curation? Etc. Commented Mar 11 at 9:54
  • 9
    @RyanM Why does this post need to be featured? Does everyone need to be informed that a handful of minor bugs have been fixed? Commented Mar 11 at 9:57
  • 7
    This needs to be featured because it's a crucial part of the "we're listening to feedback" charade. We knew full well that only superficial bugs would be acted on and all other feedback is wasted breath. Nobody should be surprised about this post. Commented Mar 11 at 10:08
  • 15
    @cigien staff don't normally feature posts themselves, they will asks mods to do so (there are exceptions). It's also highly unlikely we would also decline such a request. Commented Mar 11 at 10:46
  • 13
    bug: I will not be using the new site. please fix. Commented Mar 11 at 10:52
  • 6
    Mods are also more engaged with their communities, so are going to be more aware of those issues than the staff are. It's mostly just a formality, I'm sure, but it's one that I appreciate the staff follow. Commented Mar 11 at 12:40
  • 8
    @cigien For clarity, I requested the SO mods to feature it. This is the process 99% for featured staff posts. As Thom mentioned, it's a process that has been around for a while; it predates me as well. Commented Mar 11 at 13:24
  • 9
    I am not going to try to convince anyone of a particular prioritization of issues. Folks are welcome and encouraged to raise concerns about that as they see fit. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but just to make sure it's stated, some things are quick to fix, others take more time, and some fixes don't see the light of day because they are strictly backend changes. This is not all of the work that has been done. In addition, internal discussions in response to community feedback that result in dramatic changes take a bit longer to resolve. Commented Mar 11 at 13:56
  • 7
    (...continued) Generally, though, the vast majority of the time we just feature it, as (at least speaking for myself) I think most company announcements are inherently worth community awareness, even if the thing being announced isn't necessarily important. For example, this post has generated a lot of community feedback due to that awareness. (2/2) Commented Mar 11 at 20:58
  • 11
    "some things are quick to fix, others take more time", I'm pretty sure git revert is a quick and easy process, that's all we're asking. It would be easier for you to just listen to the feedback Commented Mar 12 at 8:50

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
115

With all due respect, those fixes merely polished a turd.

What we expect is that you take major points of community feedback you received into account and act on that feedback first. There is no moving forward until you take that feedback seriously.

The visual design of the whole beta site is completely unusable. Even without going into what other functionality is missing or is changed. The site just does not work visually.

  • Q/A format is illegible on beta site - you need to go back to using current (old) site visual presentation
  • opinion based questions need to use same format as the Q/A - questions with answers and comments, not threaded reply format
  • we need ability to move questions between Q/A and opinion based sections (for start it would suffice that moderators can do that)

Again, I am not going to open whole curation discussion here, but the above requirements are bare minimum which needs to be solved first.

7
  • 51
    "All due respect" is a great phrase because we know how much respect is due at this point. Commented Mar 11 at 12:51
  • 17
    I would also consider being able to Edit and Flag a bare minimum... I still can't do either of those. Commented Mar 11 at 13:06
  • 7
    I 100% agree with opinion-based questions using the same format as the rest of the site. Right now, opinion-based questions are effectively unreadable. Commented Mar 11 at 18:24
  • "What we expect is..." And what should we do if we do not get what we expect to get? Maybe our expectations will never get satisfied. Commented Mar 12 at 11:29
  • 15
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution "What should we do?" Leave. I am not going to use the site anymore. Because it would be completely unusable. The sooner the company realizes that, the better. Commented Mar 12 at 11:52
  • 1
    and I can make money on reddit too! Commented Mar 13 at 9:10
  • I would say that on mobile whole thing is completly unreadabe, while older implentatin is readable in both desktop and mobile modes. that's not to mention editor. Do they evenhave anyone whogot a degree invisual design or it's all wannabees or programmers doing it? Commented Mar 23 at 6:35
56

emphasis mine

I am not going to try to convince anyone of a particular prioritization of issues. Folks are welcome and encouraged to raise concerns about that as they see fit. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, but just to make sure it's stated, some things are quick to fix, others take more time, and some fixes don't see the light of day because they are strictly backend changes. This is not all of the work that has been done. In addition, internal discussions in response to community feedback that result in dramatic changes take a bit longer to resolve.

If (and that's a huge if) you have actual discussions about the dramatic changes and you're considering altering your "rearchitecting" efforts (and not merely thinking about how to reframe them), then fixing these small visual bugs is just busy work.

Let's be real for a moment; the overwhelming majority of the feedback points you to abandoning the work on Beta entirely, coming back to the existing site, and implementing your vision within a functioning UI. But if you have your eyes set on Redditization, then you have already dismissed our feedback.

Response to Hoid's comment:

I appreciate the response, and I'd like to reiterate that I have nothing except respect for you personally. I understand you are the vessel for these announcements, and I understand your position even while I remain critical of the direction.

However, I have to be direct: this remains a non-answer. Readability isn't just a "bug" to be patched; it is a fundamental byproduct of a site architecture designed for social media-style engagement rather than a high-signal library of knowledge.

If the decision isn't to back-pedal and return to the functional UI of the existing site (which seems unlikely), then the core feedback is being dismissed in favor of "panicked" metrics. Three weeks after the announcement and two weeks into the beta, we still haven't seen a meaningful rationale for this transition beyond a desire for more "contributions" at any cost. Addressing font sizes or invalid colors is just window dressing if the underlying philosophy remains "Redditization" against the clear consensus of the community.

11
  • 9
    It has not been dismissed. I have been present in most of these relevant discussions, and communicating a "no" would have been fast, but very unfun, at least for me personally. I am not saying it isn't a possible outcome, just that a lot of those things are up in the air. For example, critiques of readability have been noted, and I have worked with the staff designer on changes based on feedback to see if we can resolve the readability issues raised. Commented Mar 11 at 16:56
  • 19
    "a desire for more "contributions" at any cost" -- even if SO's idea is to just cater to lowest common denominator content slop in a desperate plea to drive engagement, the redesign likely won't achieve that either since there are countless established unmoderated platforms already racing to the bottom. I guess the idea is to ride SO's former reputation and hitherto curated content to see how much engagement that buys. My estimate is not much. Commented Mar 11 at 18:21
  • 1
    @ggorlen agreed: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/438310/… Commented Mar 11 at 18:24
  • 9
    RE "more contributions": ever since the communication around the comment experiments (and misfeatures), I've been concerned that the ship is being steered by miscounting of contributions: that aside from what actually makes the site better or worse, whatever lets someone count a higher number—even if its size is deceptive—is a bigger deciding factor. Commented Mar 11 at 20:09
  • 4
    @Hoid - The only way to take the impact of our feedback about the changes to the beta website is that they are being ignored. Questions seeking opinions are not contributions that are worth counting towards any meaningful metric. Commented Mar 12 at 3:38
  • 3
    @Hoid "...and communicating a "no" would have been fast, but very unfun..." I don't think so. It would have been honest and maybe protect people from themselves. You see that they get frustrated and all for nothing. Especially the "unfun" part I don't understand. Why would it have been fun to not react on something and unfun to react with a realistic estimation, even if that is negative? Commented Mar 12 at 11:24
  • 3
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution, it seems like you are implying that a decision has been made, and that it's not being communicated to the community; that is not the case. The practical reality is that much of the feedback is being discussed, and decisions are being made. Returning to the readability example, the typical process is to review the feedback and determine whether adjustments can be made to address it. The determination was that adjustments could be made, so we are working through those, which takes time. Commented Mar 12 at 18:11
  • 3
    @Hoid You mean that so many resources have been invested for such a long time and maybe all just for a very short time of fun before it's completely scraped and something different happens? I doubt that. Who would have so much money? In my experience, people going in one direction for a longer time are typically unwilling to turn around (the same could be said of those wanting to keep the old system). I would be willing to bet money on that there no turnaround will be happening and the adjustments if done being relatively small. Commented Mar 12 at 18:48
  • 4
    I have ideas re the eventual direction, but we won't convince each other one way or another by exchanging comments. What @NoDataDumpNoContribution is saying basically points you to the core issues of half-baked experiments, one of which was late feedback solicitation leading to reluctance to kill a feature that you worked on for quite a while, wasting more resources on it, and then eventually letting go, or more likely in this instance, leaving us with 'a polished turd'. Commented Mar 12 at 19:00
  • 1
    But what then seems to be the essence of the problems from our view? Maybe it's a mix of short-term thinking (projects that do not fly immediately aren't improved even though they could) and underestimating the importance of good curation (that's why abolishing it or moving implementation of it to a later point instead of improving it won't be the solution) and in general not listening enough to expert feedback (although I would readily admit that meta users are certainly not representative of all users). Commented Mar 13 at 7:25
  • Redditization is vey apt term ,lol. Provide that reddit is most toxic environment known in Internet now (with 4chan-esque virtually gone). Next, what, Quoratization, where AIs will ask questions in form "If <incorrect fact> is true, why not <impossible fact>?' Commented Mar 23 at 6:37
42

Staff: Here's your new pig in exchange for the current one.
Community: We don't want the new pig (beta site). It is worse in every way.
Staff: We hear you! We've put more lipstick on the pig.
Community: Are you not listening?!? We do not want the new pig. It is horrible.
Staff: MORE LIPSTICK!!!

This is my impression of what is going on. None in the community really wants the beta - it looks awful, removes core functionality and makes the experience of users simply worse. We are very vocal about it, we give feedback, but this is simply ignored - we could shout into a bucket, for all it does. And that is simply frustrating.

4
  • 12
    On the other hand they have the right to selectively listen to only some of the feedback and in general modify the platform as they want, even if that frustrates users. Maybe they use the lipstick not for us, but for other users. Maybe they try not to placate us. Maybe they try to be attractive for others instead. Maybe it's simply not about us. I wonder how long it will take until people realize it. Commented Mar 12 at 11:28
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution Considering that the first page is 50% AI chatting and AI links, you can see immediately that they are trying to replace ChatGPT. Commented Mar 20 at 23:24
  • 1
    @IsmaelMiguel Which isn't the worst goal. ChatGPT could do with a bit of competition and the future will always include AI in some form. Making AI good instead is a worthwhile goal, I'd say Commented Mar 21 at 19:29
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution Yeah, but I bet this is just a ChatGPT front-end. ChatGPT is the ffmpeg of AI chatbots. So, no competition at all. Commented Mar 22 at 8:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.