Meta · Feature requests

Request: a per-category review queue

Meta › Feature requests site feedback translation wiki post

w.novakTL3Regular22 May 2026#1

Request: a per-category review queue Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.

Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.

The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be more useful on a page with a review date than buried in a reply. That is exactly the promotion criterion as written.

Objections welcome and genuinely wanted — the whole point of discussing promotions in public is that a bad promotion is harder to undo than a bad reply.

0 likes 2mo

KStephanopoulosTL3Regular23 May 2026#2

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

21 likes 2mo

r.coelhoTL2 Moderator24 May 2026#3

KStephanopoulos, post #2: Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications. Go to post

Coming back to the opening post, 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.

5 likes in reply to #2 2mo

endpoint_marginTL2Member25 May 2026#4

Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

0 likes 2mo

m.oyelaranTL2 Moderator26 May 2026#5

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.

0 likes 2mo

citation_indexTL2Member27 May 2026 · edited#6

Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.

28 likes 2mo

ar.kravchenkoTL227 May 2026#7

Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above

I read post #5 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

footnote_entryTL3Regular28 May 2026#8

Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.

2 likes 2mo

v.rautioTL2 Moderator29 May 2026#9

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

0 likes 2mo

cannula_traceTL3Regular30 May 2026#10

endpoint_margin, post #4: Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first. 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. Go to post

post #9 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.

0 likes in reply to #4 2mo

d.petrescuTL2 Moderator30 May 2026#11

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 2mo

i.coelhoTL2 Moderator31 May 2026#12

KStephanopoulos, post #2: Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications. Go to post

Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.

2 likes in reply to #2 2mo

c.dahlbergTL2 Moderator1 Jun 2026#13

m.oyelaran, post #5: 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. Go to post

This follows post #10 rather than contradicting it.

Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.

13 likes in reply to #5 2mo

j.baptistaTL2 Moderator1 Jun 2026 · edited#14

I read post #12 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.

26 likes 2mo

buffer_marginTL3Regular2 Jun 2026#15

post #14 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.

0 likes 2mo

b.restrepoTL2 Moderator3 Jun 2026#16

w.novak, post #1: Request: a per-category review queue Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be more useful on a page with a review… Go to post

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.

4 likes in reply to #1 2mo

PSkarbekTL3Regular3 Jun 2026#17

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

18 likes 2mo

t.abubakarTL2 Moderator4 Jun 2026#18

Coming back to post #16, 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.

0 likes 2mo

j.petrovTL2 Moderator4 Jun 2026 · edited#19

c.dahlberg, post #13: This follows post #10 rather than contradicting it. 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

post #18 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

27 likes in reply to #13 2mo

compounding_ruthTL4Pharmacist5 Jun 2026#20

t.abubakar, post #18: Coming back to post #16, 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. Go to post

Worth separating two things that post #16 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.

0 likes in reply to #18 2mo

TamburelloTL2Member6 Jun 2026#21

Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.

0 likes 2mo

l.lundgrenTL2 Moderator6 Jun 2026#22

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.

22 likes 2mo

o.abrahamsenTL3Regular7 Jun 2026#23

buffer_margin, post #15: post #14 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

Coming back to post #21, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

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.

10 likes in reply to #15 2mo

m.nwosuTL2 Moderator7 Jun 2026#24

Picking up post #21: that is the part I would want checked first.

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

3 likes 2mo

NardoneTL2Member8 Jun 2026#25

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.

0 likes 2mo

t.vargaTL2 Moderator9 Jun 2026#26

post #25 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.

30 likes 2mo

crossover_entryTL3Regular9 Jun 2026#27

compounding_ruth, post #20: Worth separating two things that post #16 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. Go to post

I read post #25 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

15 likes in reply to #20 2mo

l.vermeulenTL2 Moderator10 Jun 2026#28

5 likes 2mo

IRenaudinTL2Member10 Jun 2026 · edited#29

On post #25 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

1 like 2mo

s.chowdhuryTL3Regular11 Jun 2026#30

citation_index, post #6: 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

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 in reply to #6 2mo

Sponsored PeptideMeter — peptide analytics and supplier verificationPurity analysis and structured supplier verification, published as dated records rather than scores. Referenced throughout our sourcing documentation.View analytics →