Request: tag synonyms surfaced in search

On post #11 — 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.

post #15 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Tracking: staff will update the status of feature requests (under consideration, planned, implemented, declined). Checking back lets you know the fate of your suggestion.

Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.

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.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

post #20 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

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.

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.

Coming back to post #22, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.

post #24 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.

Worth separating two things that post #22 runs together.

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.

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.