Can you do that "Spoilers text same color as page background" thing and color the font #F0F3F6. This way you have to select the text to make it visible.

@Mercurypdx: No we can't do that. But we promise you will be amply warned -- as long as you have the willpower to stop reading when you see the words "spoilers ahead" you won't be spoiled!

@Mercurypdx: The problem with this, as with most 'visual' methods of concealing spoilers, is that it's not accessible to blind consumers who are using text readers to view the page. I don't know if gawker has a policy about this sort of accessibility, though.

Just a suggestion, I've seen it done like that on other sites.

I'm happy with "Spoilers ahead". :)

I don't mind spoilers because I like to keep abreast of happenings in the genre, but rarely have time to see all these movies and read all these books. Knowing what happens is such a small part of the experience of enjoying SF for me. But, I know that it's an important issue for many, so I'd go with keeping spoilers to after the jump. And maybe keep wonder woman as a basic headline image for the morning report.

Spoilers? What spoilers? Most things in sci-fi are now so formulaic that there really is no surprise anymore.

@NefariousNewt: Maybe that's why people don't want to know about the one new thing that might actually happen in a story?

Better safe than sorry. If someone wants to read spoilers they can check the warnings and hit the jump. If someone doesn't want to see spoilers, they can't unsee them if they're not hidden. (Spoilers) in the headline and "Spoilers after the jump" before the jump seems quite reasonable to me.

Really, makes little difference.. "Spoiler Ahead! The Good Guys Win!"

I'd just like to say that I appreciate this poll and I'm very happy to see that you guys are cognizant of this issue. I must admit I was a little pissy last week that Harry Knowles' Cloverfield spoilers appeared on the front page.

If you suscribe to the RSS feed you get the whole page so you should have spoiler warnings in the headlines.

@extracrispy: I know, I know -- I just thought his description was so ridiculous and incoherent that it couldn't be spoilery. Won't happen again!

I hate spoilers for things I actually watch/ read, but quite like them for things I'm not really that into. (So if you could just base your decision solely around my tastes that would be great.)

It's funny, I was just thinking about spoilers when I was looking at the io9 feed in My Yahoo! After ruining Cloverfield for me by displaying an image of the monster in a post last week, I was about to remove your feed and write off your blog. I'll stick around if some of these measures are put in place though. (Remember, images can be spoilers too!)

I don't mind being spoiled, but other people tend to read my screen for reasons entirely unknown to me. No spoilers on the front page, as such. I'd rather not get punched.

@canadianco: Sorry about the Cloverfield monster thing. I think that was Kevin. And you know it wasn't the real monster, right? It was fan art. We're still figuring out the boundaries around spoilers here, and we really want people to feel safe coming to our blog.

The only problem for me is something like Morning Spoilers, because I may want some, but not all. So, even if you put all the spoilers after the jump, I have to decide between all or none.

And since as a reader of a free blog, I believe that every blog should be designed in a way that caters specifically to my wants and desires....

@StrangestCreature: I'm a firm believer in no spoilers on the front page. Hopefully we can stick to that policy.

The thing with images is that some are genuine "sneak peeks" and some are spoilers. We have to be able to give io9 readers sneak peeks at stuff -- it's part of the cool anticipation of the show/book/movie! But if you are really worried that a glimpse of concept art or a sneak peek will spoil you, you can always avoid any post with "sneak peek" in the tag or headline.

Spoilers!!! Works best for me, but I'll always read it anyways, since I have little-to-no self control.

is a 'screaming skull' picture i'm seeing? awesome.

I second 92BUICKLESABRE: In morning spoilers, I'd love to have the option to see only the spoilers I want instead of having to risk spoiling stuff I've been anxiously avoiding! Otherwise, as long as I'm warned soon enough to stop skimming (keeping in mind that I read in an RSS feed, so there's no 'jump' to hide stuff and so I appreciate warning in the text itself).

My 2 cents: just put it after the jump with a warning. I think charliejane had it correct.

How about "click here now for the spoilers"

@charliejane: Thanks for the reply. I actually did not know that the monster image was fan art... I probably closed my browser too fast to get that far into the post! With how secretive the producers were with the teaser trailer, I admit I was a little surprised to see an image of the monster leaked anywhere at all.

@Annalee: I agree, it's a fine line between "sneak peek" and "spoiler". I'm firmly in the conservative, don't-want-to-know-anything-la-la-la-la-can't-hear-you camp... but as long there's warning, it should be okay.

There's another option: (technical comment) you write the spoiler with html "spoiler" class, that is written with black on black. When someone marks (with the mouse) this text, it can be read. How's that?

I strongly prefer spoilers to be hidden after a jump or cut, and breaking up the spoilers as an earlier commenter observed is a good idea to me as well: some things I want to read, others I want to avoid, and a "Morning Spoilers" collection means an all-or-nothing approach that I don't personally like.

One other thing: the RSS feed on Livejournal for io9 displays the full post. If the feed displayed only the content before the jump with a link, I'd like it better. (I use LJ as an aggregate RSS feed reader.) As it is, I have to scroll by *really fast* if I notice there's a spoiler post.

Thanks for asking and posting this poll, by the way: it's nice to have an opportunity to share this kind of feedback. I appreciate it.

Spoilers after the jump with a warning is pretty standard. If you read it after that it's your own damn fault.

IMHO, spoilers should always be after the cut. As far as flagging it, I think a warning in the headline would be nice, but a SPOILER category would be sufficient. That way even rss readers like livejournal can pull a feed "-SPOILER". But really, it doesn't matter what you do as long as you do it consistently. I can adapt.

I remember the old days. You young kids with your web and your DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM and stuff don't remember back when we had netnews and it was all net.stuff, none of this newfangled rec.arts.sf.obscure-show.trivia.moderated and alt.tv.wesley.crusher.hey.wil.are.you.reading.io9. We didn't have none of that multicolored text and MARKUP LANGUAGES you kids are using now. We just used rot13 and we liked it. And we had to download stuff over the uucp line uphill in both directions by just whistling into the acoustic modem.

ABJ LBH XVQF TRG BSS ZL QNZARQ YNJA.
*jnirf pnar*

oh, a serious note -- if you can write posts so that visual spoilers don't show up on the rss feed, that would be, as they say here in the 21st century, TEH AWESOME.

If the storyline is so dead and dull that I must be surprised by every twist and turn, then I'm not sure I want to read/watch the fiction anyway.

I mean, seriously- if you _need_ the surprise of "Snape kills Dumbledore" to enjoy the book, is the book really all that good? Would the second reading be less enjoyable because you already know the twists?

I'm the sort that likes the journey, even if I know the destination.

@rmd1023: Did you uuencode those ROT13 messages too?

And, Annalee and Charliejane, definitely take into account RSS feeds. I don't tend to care too much about being spoiled, but I also like the chance to resist temptation, even if I don't take it ;-) I know for a while Gawker media used to put the [Category] at the front of the RSS headline, but that's been recently switched to the rear it seems (which I find v. annoying since I want to skip the items I don't care about and the category is the best way to get a general idea of whether I should keep reading... yes I'm that lazy ;-)

Hey isn't steganography all the cool new thing now... you should use that for spoilers ;-)

@justjack75: yes. yes i did. :-)

oooh! steganographic spoilers! SO SUBTLE YOU DON'T EVEN REALIZE YOU'VE BEEN SPOILED.

or blipvertspoilers. "there was a flash. and then, suddenly, i knew darth vader's relationship to luke skywanker."

I would *prefer* "SPOILERS AHOY!" as it is jauntier.

@JennaW: Well, not to infuse this threat with Ninja v. Pirate talk, but that sounds a little to Piratey for my tastes.

@JennaW: Yes, that sounds kinda good.
@92BuickLeSabre: Spoilers sensai, doesn't sound jaunty though.

Don't forget to put spoiler warnings on comments with spoilers in them...

the only reason you call them spoilers is because hearing them spoils something and the only way a scifi story can be spoiled by revealing information about it is if the story was so drab to begin with the only interesting part was the mystery.

@tetracycloide: Agreed. Though sometimes I like to watch Torchwood without knowing the plot. Besides, the gawker media player isn't as good quality as I like my tv shows to be.

@aspiringexpatriate: Well I guess with Torchwood I always know the plot. I'm jsut a stickler for quality of image I guess.

@aspiringexpatriate: Howsabout "Spoilers Hai !!!"

@mighty_squid: I'm going to have to agree with the Mighty Squid on this one. I don't mind spoilers as long as I know they are there and I have the option to look or not. I hate it when something just jumps out at me and I don't have the option to reject it...seems like spoiler-rape to me. On the other hand, if the notice is posted and it's not on a front page so someone could accidentally link into it then it is the persons own fault for viewing it.

@92BuickLeSabre:
@aspiringexpatriate:

"Abandon All Hope Ye Who Clicky Here"?

I wish I was wise enough to say do it one way or another. But if it's spoilers for BSG, I really don't wanna read 'em since I like the surprise....but spoilers for something like "Uncle Doobie, Good Time Slim and the Great Frisco Freakout", well I think I'll live if I find out that the stash was exchanged with the diamonds.

I trust whatever you do will be fine, I really enjoy reading the blog!

@JennaW: *ding**ding**ding*

@njudahchronicles: Bastard, I just rented "Uncle Doobie, Good Time Slim and the Great Frisco Freakout." Next time how about an "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Clicky Here" Warning! Okay?!?!

I think they should be randomly worked into posts - even posts that are completely unrelated. So if the post is about "Cloverfield", I would not be averse to a sentence that reads:

"Abrams wanted to pay tribute to - that Lonelygirl15 kid is a 28 year-old actress."

Put 'em anywhere. Just make it random and stick it in the middle of a sentence.

Yes, three votes for "Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Clicky Here"

"seems like spoiler-rape to me"
Genius. Oh, to not be on Jezebel at least once a day. Am I the only one who finds that inappropriately funny after today?

@omg-ponies: That would work too I think.

I mean, I found out about the Sixth Sense that way, didn't mind so much. Nathan Lane was on Leno and was like "Oh! So what? He's dead."

@omg-ponies: hear-hear!

Remember how Shakespeare started Romeo & Juliet with a spoiler? It didn't ruin the play. It's the tv/movie/game writing/acting/directing/producing team's duty to make the story so engaging and compelling that knowing what happens only makes it more powerful. Not EVERYTHING has to be an Agatha Christie novel.

That being said, a little warning is always good! I mean, at least instead of some 16th century herald prematurely ejaculating some gem of a plot, Shakespeare gave us the spoiler on his own terms within the narrative.