Jump to content

[FEATURE] - every feature suggestion deserves a response from GS

Followers 2

Recommended Posts

It used to be the case that GS were

  • committed to responding to the threads that are started in this forum

but now (a recent change?) they only say they will

  • watch for and read newly-created threads.

I'd like to propose that every feature suggestion deserves a response from GS.


Groundspeak should ensure that no thread languishes in limbo, scrolled-off the bottom of the page and never likely to receive further replies. If the community's stopped discussing it, GS need to make a decision. Don't blank the OP, as if to say "your willingness to contribute is not valued". A "DECLINE", with a comment, is better than silence.

Link to comment

I think Groundspeak does a pretty good job. They are potentially drinking from a firehose on this. Have a look and see if you can find a forum where Facebook or Google or some other company with thousands of employees and a multi-billion dollar market cap responds to every idea that their users can manage to write up with a two-line forum post.


The vast majority of feature suggestions are going to be impracticable for many different reasons. This is not the legal system, where you have some state-sanctioned guarantee of reply.

Link to comment

Comparisons to Facebook, Google and the legal system are not useful.


Feature-suggestion threads drifting into limbo would likely merit a DECLINE response rather a SUBMIT one. I cannot see that it would be hard for GS to quickly DECLINE where appropriate with a stock comment like "insufficient support at this time" or "current developments {in mapping, say} are incompatible with this suggestion". It would at least show they'd read the feature suggestion.

Link to comment

More information than submitted would be great. This requires no big change in programming. Simply stating the likelihood an idea that is submitted will actually come to fruition would probably go a long way in helping users feel their voices are at least being acknowledged.


Most refreshing post ever was the one from Jeremy stating even though something was submitted it was likely never going to get acted on. People can then stop waiting for stuff to happen and getting frustrated when it doesn't.

Link to comment

It is not possible for Groundspeak to respond to every request that is posted in our forums. We are, however, watching the forums and for those features that have user support, and are viable. That is the promise that we can make to our users. We will continue to respond to all bugs reported.

Link to comment

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, Sandy.


The issue I'm raising is perhaps simpler than you realise. In essence: there should be no "open" (neither SUBMITTED nor DECLINED) threads past page 2 of this forum. It's probably obvious to everyone that those threads are never going to see the light of day again, so to relabel it "DECLINED" along with a stock comment like "insufficient interest at this time" would be uncontroversial and easy for Groundspeak to perform. You might think that's such a trivial response that it's not worth doing, but as the unlucky initiator of a few unloved(!) suggestions I can assure you that it would make a great deal of difference: I'd see that you'd read the suggestion.

Link to comment

I!, I can assure you that we read every single thread and message posted in this forum. The fact that we don't always respond doesn't mean that we are ignoring an idea, and we wouldn't want to decline anything for simply slipping to page 2. We've tried to be up-front about the fact that we have a huge backlog of feature requests in our database and, while we are continually working to bring the most desired ones to fruition, it is not realistic that we will make a decision (decline or otherwise) on a lower-priority feature until we can have a chance to fully investigate it.

Link to comment

Moun10Bike, thanks for commenting. You say it's not realistic that GS make a decision until you've had the chance to fully investigate the suggestion. OK, but neither is it realistic for you to fully investigate every suggestion. In the old UserVoice system, you would occasionally wipe out the poorly-supported threads, and the OP would be notified of that. The result: closure ... good! Thus, I would like you to do something similar with this forum, which I had supposed meant you'd finally dispose of whatever zombie threads were to be found shambling off to page 2 and beyond. That's nothing more than aggressive triaging, which is surely more a help to the lackeys than a hindrance, and would feel a whole world more clear-cut to the OP than at present.

Link to comment

Believe me, I'd love some more aggressive triaging! :) However, we don't believe that just because there is not a lot of discussion about a topic that it is necessarily a bad idea nor even poorly supported. Rather than arbitrarily decline such threads just to keep the forums "clean," we would prefer to let them "live" until such time that we can give them adequate investigation. The decision then might be to decline, but it might be to implement.



Link to comment

Moun10Bike> The decision then might be to decline, but it might be to implement.


I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm not asking for an implement-or-discard decision: I'm asking for a SUBMIT or DECLINE response. I take it that SUBMIT means "this has a chance (we won't tell you how much of a chance), so we've put it into the database"; and DECLINE means "this appears to have very little hope of seeing the light of day, so it's not going into the database". SUBMIT/DECLINE should be an easier decision to make than implement/discard.


I'm reluctant to make this personal, but when for example might you expect to SUBMIT or DECLINE my "What's hot (favourites)" suggestion currently sliding down page 5?


[ In return, I promise I'll try not to badger you with another question on the general subject of triaging tonight :unsure: ]

Link to comment

No, DECLINE means the idea has made it into the database, went through all of the processes of estimating, prioritizing, etc., and in the end was rejected. I think that might be where we are misunderstanding one another. Features here that have been marked as SUBMITTED here have only been so tagged because they were already in the database, not because we decided to take one idea over another. All new ideas (i.e. not already in the database) have been left as-is.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Followers 2
  • Create New...