# The new-new functionality: why call it "new" not "unread"?

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-new-new-functionality-why-call-it-new-not-unread/390661
**Category:** UX
**Created:** [December 8, 2025, 6:39am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-new-new-functionality-why-call-it-new-not-unread/390661 "2025-12-08T06:39:34Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![chapoi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/chapoi/32/537252_2.png) [@chapoi](https://meta.discourse.org/u/chapoi)
#### Post date: [December 8, 2025, 7:52am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-new-new-functionality-why-call-it-new-not-unread/390661/3 "2025-12-08T07:52:55Z")

</div>

Hello,

We’ve had literal hours of conversation about the naming internally. Eventually, we concluded that new and unread were too ambiguous: everything unread is also new for a user, everything new is unread by default.

> [@Teafh](#):
>
> according to my settings I should read them and I haven’t.

Is this the setting you refer to:

![CleanShot 2025-12-08 at 08.52.00](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/4X/4/9/0/4902e26beb605c8b27a48b2934cdd91b9e309a6a.png)

Or has your question been already answered by the other topic you found?

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-new-new-functionality-why-call-it-new-not-unread/390661)._