Request: a diff view for wiki revisions — the long version posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Worth separating two things that post #60 runs together.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Coming back to post #64, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Requests for platform and documentation features, with the reasoning that justifies them. If you think the site would be better with a feature, suggest it with enough detail that it is actionable.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
post #66 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
This follows post #66 rather than contradicting it.
Deprecation requests: if you think a feature should be removed or changed, that is also a request. Explain why you think it would improve the site.
I read post #68 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.
This follows post #71 rather than contradicting it.
Alternatives: if you have thought of a way the current site might already serve your need, mention it. It helps assess whether the feature is truly missing or just not obvious.
On post #71 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Worth separating two things that post #75 runs together.
Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.
post #79 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.
Worth separating two things that post #78 runs together.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
Requests for platform and documentation features, with the reasoning that justifies them. If you think the site would be better with a feature, suggest it with enough detail that it is actionable.
Picking up post #84: that is the part I would want checked first.
Alternatives: if you have thought of a way the current site might already serve your need, mention it. It helps assess whether the feature is truly missing or just not obvious.
Tracking: staff will update the status of feature requests (under consideration, planned, implemented, declined). Checking back lets you know the fate of your suggestion.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.