In trending discussions they still show up.

Ugh.

I go there now and then to see what I have (blissfully) been missing.

"Latest" works OK.

Peace. 🪷

If you don't want to see this person's posts at all, set up your link to DU so it opens directly to Latest Discussions rather than the home page.

If you have chosen to ignore the people or bots in question, however, it's easy not to click on their posts. If I find myself mistakenly opening a trending discussion, it's easy just to roll my eyes.

I can also concede that sometimes complete fools can nonetheless have something useful to say or do.

I wish some of my antagonists here would put me on full ignore. I suspect, but cannot prove, that they don't want to miss a chance to alert on any and all of my posts whenever it's remotely feasible a jury will reject it. The good part of this, of course, is that it forces me to behave myself, always a struggle since I have very strong, and somewhat iconoclastic views on energy and the environment.

Keep trying

I use DU and Hacker News as my link aggregators, though sometimes there is original content on the sites.

They are both heavily moderated, and as for DU, I have the block list and 107 unique trash terms.

And I don't miss a damn thing worth reading.

Have a peaceful Saturday, and remember.

SHIT GOES DOWN ON SATURDAYS!

Except for Joe Biden's decision, which apparently was delayed so as not to interfere with his HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS.

Asking and hoping for someone to ignore you shouldn't be the way it works. You shouldn't have to ask for someone to leave you alone, you should be able to turn them off and prevent them from seeing and commenting on your posts. Other social media and forum sites work this way.

And it would not be difficult to code the site to hide people from your ignore list from showing up on the homepage too. It is an oversight that could be easily corrected on the next update, if admins wanted to. I can't imagine a reason why it shouldn't be.

...on your ignore list to issue alerts on one's post, say an upper limit, but even that sounds a little to complex and bureaucratic.

If a post legitimately violates a rule, someone will alert on it.

...a box I seldom check, but have on occasion found reason to use, one is asked if the person who issued the alert was being malicious or whether they merely misunderstood the post or acted in good faith.

Among human beings, even liberal human beings, there are many temptations to not act in "good faith."

I always try to err on the side of tolerance, but there have been rare times that I can't do so.

I've never been asked to serve on a jury, so I am not aware what it looks like or how it works.

Apparently I'm the only person driven crazy. Everyone else thinks they are adorable. Feels like junior high.

their posts at all.

Unfortunately there are technical reasons for this which would be very difficult to resolve.

It'll light up, then when I check, no new posts have appeared.

I suspect it's because I have one prolific poster in Foreign Affairs (one of my subs) on ignore, but I haven't bothered unignoring them to confirm this.