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 would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.
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.
Picking up post #59: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
0 likes 3mo
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
That reframing is better than the original request and staff would consider it. Which is a good illustration of why these belong in public: the first version would have been declined and the third is worth building.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
14 likes 3mo
a.weiss, post #44: Post #41 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications. Go to post
Appreciated. The plain phrasing does more work here than a longer post would.
Request: an export of my own posts. Not for any dramatic reason — I want to search my own history offline, and site search is optimised for finding other people's material.
I would call that likely rather than established.
29 likes 3mo
vial_table, post #54: I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #63 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Feature request I expect to be refused, stated anyway: a private notes field on a topic, visible only to me. I keep those in a text file and the text file loses the link.
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
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Request from the analytics side: allow a table in a post to be marked as data rather than layout, so it can be copied without the formatting. Half the tables here are worth pasting into a spreadsheet.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
0 likes 3mo
The arithmetic in post #70 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
3 likes 3mo
d.vestergaard, post #51: 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. Go to post
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
30 likes 3mo
Post #73 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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 3mo
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
Adding the measurement that post #74 says would settle it.
Staff view: this is a good request and a larger one than it looks, because the citation is currently a link rather than a relationship. Recording it properly is the work, displaying it is trivial.
5 likes 3mo
j.delacroix, post #46: 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. Go to post
Post #73 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
t.vasquez, post #63: That reframing is better than the original request and staff would consider it. Which is a good illustration of why these belong in public: the first version would have been declined and the third is worth building. None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any. Go to post
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.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
TL4_Halvorsen, post #73: Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications. Go to post
I read post #76 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
I read post #77 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Fair. Then under the name, at a smaller size, permanently.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
0 likes 3mo
i.boateng, post #40: 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. Go to post
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.
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
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.
8 likes 3mo
Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.
That reframing is better than the original request and staff would consider it. Which is a good illustration of why these belong in public: the first version would have been declined and the third is worth building.
0 likes 3mo
Narrowing post #85, because the general version has more than one answer.
Request: an export of my own posts. Not for any dramatic reason — I want to search my own history offline, and site search is optimised for finding other people's material.
28 likes 3mo
n.rowntree, post #33: 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. Go to post
Post #85 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
a.pereira, post #14: I read post #10 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. Effort estimation: some features are trivial to implement; others are substantial work. Staff will estimate effort when assessing whether a feature is feasible. Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki. 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 would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
Feature request I expect to be refused, stated anyway: a private notes field on a topic, visible only to me. I keep those in a text file and the text file loses the link.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
4 likes 3mo
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
0 likes 3mo