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.
0 likes 3mo
Meta · Feature requests · continued
Request: show the solution author in the topic list — what changed since posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
This follows post #59 rather than contradicting it.
Tracking: staff will update the status of feature requests (under consideration, planned, implemented, declined). Checking back lets you know the fate of your suggestion.
0 likes 3mo
a.weiss, post #44: This follows post #41 rather than contradicting it. Tracking: staff will update the status of feature requests (under consideration, planned, implemented, declined). Checking back lets you know the fate of your suggestion. Go to post
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
29 likes 3mo
vial_table, post #54: Worth separating two things that post #50 runs together. Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible. Go to post
On post #63 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
titration_diary, post #39: post #38 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible. Go to post
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
0 likes 3mo
post #70 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
3 likes 3mo
d.vestergaard, post #51: I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological. The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient. Go to post
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.
30 likes 3mo
Coming back to post #72, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
0 likes 3mo
j.delacroix, post #46: post #45 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different. Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting. Go to post
Worth separating two things that post #72 runs together.
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.
y.rahimi, post #63: Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise. Go to post
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
TL4_Halvorsen, post #73: Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete. Go to post
On post #76 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.
On post #77 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
0 likes 3mo
i.boateng, post #40: Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised. Go to post
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
0 likes 3mo
post #85 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
28 likes 3mo
n.rowntree, post #33: Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting. Go to post
I read post #85 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.
a.pereira, post #14: On post #10 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. 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. Go to post
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.
4 likes 3mo
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
0 likes 3mo