I'm absolutely VERY BEHIND on the queue again -- when I have medical shit limiting the amount of time I can spend upright and on the computer per day, the suggestions queue tends to be the last thing I prioritize(*) and I've had nothing BUT medical shit limiting the amount of time I can spend upright and on the computer per day over the past, oh, THREE YEARS at least. Sigh.
(*) not because user suggestions aren't important, they absolutely are! but at this point of the site's lifecycle, 95% of stuff coming through suggestions falls into one of four categories:
1) tiny changes that don't need discussion, like fixing a typo, adding a new embedding source/new site for the usertag, etc, that will be more or less automatically accepted; whenever I have a *few* minutes that aren't otherwise spoken for, I fish those out of the queue, send them straight to our issue tracker, reject them (so they never hit the community) and explain to the user submitting them that I sent them straight to the issue tracker since they don't need discussion;
2) massive huge changes/major new features that would take a LOT of discussion with the community to work out the details, have a lot of unsolved problems that the suggester doesn't know about (and doesn't have to know about, that's what we're for) and/or would take a lot of programmer time -- this is stuff that's possible/stuff we'd want to do but isn't going to be an immediate thing, because major new features need a LOT of planning and very careful specs and usually require time from senior devs, and most of our senior devs are busy on other stuff or have also been having life issues lately;
3) stuff that's not likely to happen -- because it's too hard to do technically without massive database load, because it's contrary to our vision for the site, because similar things have been proposed before and the community has rejected it, etc -- that I reject but write a detailed message why so the person can at least know why it won't work;
4) stuff that's a duplicate of an existing accepted suggestion that's in the pool for somebody to pick up if they want, an existing rejected suggestion (that needs a detailed message as above for why it was rejected), or of something that's already in the issue tracker via a method other than suggestions.
Of those, 3 and 4 both need detailed responses that take time, and 2 needs a "hey, this is something that's totally eligible for implementation if the community likes it but it's a LOT more complicated than it looks, it's not going to happen quickly, and we can't guarantee someone would be interested in doing it", so they usually take a while for me to respond to. I try to do one or two when I have a chance, but it has been a BAD few years.
Anyway, yes, the suggestion process is still a thing, please submit yours! I keep saying I'm going to get through the queue and I keep not having the time, so I won't give you any sort of time frame, but it is a thing that is perpetually on my list of Shit I Am Behind On and I'm really sorry that it is.
no subject
(*) not because user suggestions aren't important, they absolutely are! but at this point of the site's lifecycle, 95% of stuff coming through suggestions falls into one of four categories:
1) tiny changes that don't need discussion, like fixing a typo, adding a new embedding source/new site for the usertag, etc, that will be more or less automatically accepted; whenever I have a *few* minutes that aren't otherwise spoken for, I fish those out of the queue, send them straight to our issue tracker, reject them (so they never hit the community) and explain to the user submitting them that I sent them straight to the issue tracker since they don't need discussion;
2) massive huge changes/major new features that would take a LOT of discussion with the community to work out the details, have a lot of unsolved problems that the suggester doesn't know about (and doesn't have to know about, that's what we're for) and/or would take a lot of programmer time -- this is stuff that's possible/stuff we'd want to do but isn't going to be an immediate thing, because major new features need a LOT of planning and very careful specs and usually require time from senior devs, and most of our senior devs are busy on other stuff or have also been having life issues lately;
3) stuff that's not likely to happen -- because it's too hard to do technically without massive database load, because it's contrary to our vision for the site, because similar things have been proposed before and the community has rejected it, etc -- that I reject but write a detailed message why so the person can at least know why it won't work;
4) stuff that's a duplicate of an existing accepted suggestion that's in the pool for somebody to pick up if they want, an existing rejected suggestion (that needs a detailed message as above for why it was rejected), or of something that's already in the issue tracker via a method other than suggestions.
Of those, 3 and 4 both need detailed responses that take time, and 2 needs a "hey, this is something that's totally eligible for implementation if the community likes it but it's a LOT more complicated than it looks, it's not going to happen quickly, and we can't guarantee someone would be interested in doing it", so they usually take a while for me to respond to. I try to do one or two when I have a chance, but it has been a BAD few years.
Anyway, yes, the suggestion process is still a thing, please submit yours! I keep saying I'm going to get through the queue and I keep not having the time, so I won't give you any sort of time frame, but it is a thing that is perpetually on my list of Shit I Am Behind On and I'm really sorry that it is.