Request with the use case rather than the feature. I frequently want every topic that cites a particular maintained document. At the moment I can find the document from the topic and not the reverse.
3 likes 3mo
Meta · Feature requests · continued
Request: show the solution author in the topic list — what changed since posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
s.leclerc, post #11: Both of these are in the same family and staff would rather do one thing well than two things partly. If the range link exists, the citation relationship gets much easier to record, so the order matters. Go to post
Post #28 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
n.haddad, post #19: Adding the measurement that post #16 says would settle it. Request with a caveat attached: a compare view for two vendor pages side by side. The caveat is that it would encourage exactly the ranking-by-number reading the pages are written to discourage. This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not. 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.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
The arithmetic in post #34 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Both of these are in the same family and staff would rather do one thing well than two things partly. If the range link exists, the citation relationship gets much easier to record, so the order matters.
1 like 3mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Answering the question post #32 raises rather than the one it answers.
I would use that constantly. The objection is presumably that it is data the site then has to hold and protect for no benefit to anyone else.
One case, stated as one case.
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
Both of these are in the same family and staff would rather do one thing well than two things partly. If the range link exists, the citation relationship gets much easier to record, so the order matters.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
24 likes 3mo
a.reyes, post #35: The arithmetic in post #34 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check. Both of these are in the same family and staff would rather do one thing well than two things partly. If the range link exists, the citation relationship gets much easier to record, so the order matters. Go to post
Narrowing post #37, because the general version has more than one answer.
Then the honest version is a comparison of the record shapes rather than the scores. How many results, over how long, from which services. That I would use.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
e.krastev, post #6: Seconded. It reads as careful rather than confident, which is the right register. Go to post
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.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
d.eriksen, post #18: Everything in post #14 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have. Then the honest version is a comparison of the record shapes rather than the scores. How many results, over how long, from which services. That I would use. That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with. Go to post
Coming back to post #41, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
titration_diary, post #39: Narrowing post #37, because the general version has more than one answer. Then the honest version is a comparison of the record shapes rather than the scores. How many results, over how long, from which services. That I would use. The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working. Go to post
Picking up post #44: that is the part I would want checked first.
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Filing this under things that are true until someone shows me otherwise.
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
I had written a reply contradicting post #46 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
That is exactly the objection, and it is not a refusal on principle. Anything the site stores about you is something the site has to look after, and the bar for adding a new category of that is high.
0 likes 3mo
Fair. Then under the name, at a smaller size, permanently.
17 likes 3mo
Post #46 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Counter-request, gently: please do not add anything on hover. It does not exist on a phone and half the readers here are on one.
The general case is well covered; this is the awkward specific one.
7 likes 3mo
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
That is exactly the objection, and it is not a refusal on principle. Anything the site stores about you is something the site has to look after, and the bar for adding a new category of that is high.
1 like 3mo
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
I have kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
0 likes 3mo
Request that would help newcomers more than regulars: show the subcategory description on hover in the category list. The names are terse and the descriptions are good.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
2 likes 3mo
k.kuusela, post #34: Counter-request, gently: please do not add anything on hover. It does not exist on a phone and half the readers here are on one. Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me. Go to post
Then the honest version is a comparison of the record shapes rather than the scores. How many results, over how long, from which services. That I would use.
It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.
I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.
20 likes 3mo
Picking up post #52: that is the part I would want checked first.
Fair. Then under the name, at a smaller size, permanently.
0 likes 3mo
j.mwangi, post #12: That is exactly the objection, and it is not a refusal on principle. Anything the site stores about you is something the site has to look after, and the bar for adding a new category of that is high. Go to post
Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
13 likes 3mo
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
Both of these are in the same family and staff would rather do one thing well than two things partly. If the range link exists, the citation relationship gets much easier to record, so the order matters.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
27 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.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
2 likes 3mo
Post #58 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
I would use that constantly. The objection is presumably that it is data the site then has to hold and protect for no benefit to anyone else.
8 likes 3mo