This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
post #90 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Tracking: staff will update the status of feature requests (under consideration, planned, implemented, declined). Checking back lets you know the fate of your suggestion.
Worth separating two things that post #88 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.
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.
On post #92 — 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.
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.
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.
On post #98 — 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.
Picking up post #100: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
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 #104 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.
I read post #106 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Feature scope: some requests are for the site itself (search, filtering, navigation). Some are for the documentation (new topics, different formats). Scope helps prioritise.
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.
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.
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
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 #117 rather than contradicting it.
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.