What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Okay, no-one likes my feature request. So there appears to be zero chance of it being implemented automatically. The masses hath spoken. :)

So, are there any other options aside from following the "we don't serve your type" advice? Perhaps you also have a feature that would be cool but no-one else likes.

So I ask since we're all software devs and software devs have cash..... could we pay the SO team to implement a feature? I'd like to be able to swear again and would pay for the privilege.

share|improve this question
1  
w​​​​h​​​a​​​​t –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:22
3  
Happy Birthday Welbog - this is your gift... –  Shogging through the snow Nov 16 '09 at 20:23
14  
Are you on crack? Just get Sampson to write you a Grease Monkey script that inserts profanity every few words. Or just read my profile every 10-15 minutes (like I do - it helps deal with the rampant whininess of Meta's userbase). –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:24
5  
software devs have cash??????? –  jmfsg Nov 16 '09 at 20:24
    
If you bought some advertising space you might be able to talk the dev team into implementing a feature for you.. you'd probably still have to ask very nicely though :) –  Ether Nov 16 '09 at 20:24
2  
Grease Monkey + Welbog = WIN –  user27414 Nov 16 '09 at 20:24
    
Wait it doesn't work that way round. Inserting swears randomly is stupid. I want to use them in the first place. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 20:27
3  
Technically, you can curse all you want, it'll just get flagged. –  Kevin Nov 16 '09 at 20:28
    
According to the rules I will get suspended/banned. Also the original content will be modified. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 20:32
1  
God how I want those super mega downvotes right now. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/29929/foo/29935#29935 –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 20:38
2  
@Quibblesome: Stop whining about downvotes. It's not like anyone whose opinion matters downvoted you... –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:46
4  
@Quibblesome: Downvotes mean the people do not agree with you. You're allowed to have opinions and so are they. The well-wordedness and soundness of your suggestions aren't what're in question here. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:59
4  
@Quibblesome: Understand that on Meta, downvoting often means you simply disagree with the proposal. I disagree with you attempting to buy a feature, I cannot describe how much I disagree with trying to implement a "Safe" mode (even Google can't get that right, and they have a veritable army of Really Smart People), and while I wish I could cuss on SO (especially right about now), I respect the site owner's pragmatic wishes on it and let it go. Troggy H. Welbog on a flying Pesto! –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 21:02
2  
@Quibblesome: Welcome to meta. –  Troggy Nov 16 '09 at 23:24
1  
@Kevin Laity: Welcome to Meta. Downvotes already explained several times on this post alone. –  John Rudy Nov 17 '09 at 18:53

5 Answers 5

I've long been a supporter of the swear jar idea. It gives we drunksfree-spirited individuals an opportunity to speak our minds and it gives Jeff lots of money. It's win-win!

share|improve this answer
    
So now we just need a place to enter our CC#! –  squillman Nov 16 '09 at 20:30
1  
@Welbog: you'd finance SOFU for a year with your profile alone. +1 –  perbert Nov 17 '09 at 0:43

I'm sure if you offered enough money, Jeff & Co would find the resources to implement it somewhere. It is a business, after all.

But I suspect the price is more than you can afford, as they have to weigh not only the costs to implement and maintain the feature, but the potential change in viewership and how that might impact revenue (and they seem to believe it would cost them a measurable number of users) and also how it would impact their staffing, etc.

share|improve this answer
    
It's more than a box of donuts? Awwwww. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:45
1  
... Do the donuts have ... sprinkles ... ? –  Adam Davis Nov 16 '09 at 20:48
    
Do you want them to have sprinkles? –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:49
    
You are not talking about sex, right? That sentence exchange sounded dirty... shrugs –  perbert Nov 17 '09 at 0:42

So there appears to be zero chance of it being implemented automatically.

What what what?! Features never get implemented automatically, they don't exist "by default." The feature you suggested would take considerable time and effort to develop, and likely would not be implemented to the same quality standards as the rest of SO, simply because it is nigh-impossible to do correctly. (This isn't a knock on the SO team, it's a knock on the feature. If you can't do something correctly -- and that feature couldn't be done such -- then don't do it.)

While they were building that feature, a bunch of others which are being considered won't be getting built. Ones which were more popular with the community.

That, and unless you could offer enough to pay the developer(s) in question for their time adequately (I don't know what they make, but think three figures an hour for their total cost) you probably can't afford it.

I'm not even sure the question makes welb_gging sense.

share|improve this answer
    
Cute. I see what you did there, Jon B. :) –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 20:38
1  
That's B_rthday Welb_gging sense to you, Jon. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:41
    
By automatically I meant that the community loves it and upvotes it so very much that SO implements it "for free/automatically". I feel strongly about this issue, therefore I am looking to see if there are any routes to goal. If a route exists that costs money then it is still a viable route. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 20:43
    
If the route costs money -- how much do you have to spend on this? What's it really worth, in dollars, to you? Because my off-the-cuff response on something like this is at least 40 - 80 hours, and at a cheap $100 an hour, that's a lot of beans just to be able to cuss at will. Get a blog and cuss there. Cheaper. –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 20:45
    
@Cigars: I do that too! I'm way ahead of the pack here. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:48
    
@welb_g: I know. And I love the window pane-type effect on the right-hand images. Those are slick. –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 20:57
    
Original content is important to me. This is more an ethical concern, like the same way people take up teaching even though the pay is terrible. Your worst case scenario is $8000. That's roughly £5,000. Yes, I would consider that. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 20:59
    
@Cigars: You're slick. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 21:00
3  
@Quibblesome - there are starving people in the world and you would pay $8,000 to swear on SO? Now I feel like I need to swear on SO. –  user27414 Nov 16 '09 at 21:01
    
That's off the cuff without seeing the code. The only person who could answer the cost question is Jeff. E-mail team@stackoverflow.com and I'm sure, were he to entertain your request, he could get you a quote. –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 21:03
2  
There are starving people in the world and we're sitting here discussing this on metaoverflow when we could be helping them. Go figure. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 21:09
    
You win the non-sequitur of the day award. :) –  John Rudy Nov 16 '09 at 21:10

According to DiBiase, Everybody has a price

I'm relatively certain that if you were to offer Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky $256,000,000[USD] then they would be only too happy to turn Stackoverflow over to you lock stock and barrel, nevermind implementing your 'feature'.

Given that such a price must exist, the rest is quibbling.

"Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price."

share|improve this answer
1  
I'd be sold by $256[USD]. If only because the geekiness would make me want to do it. –  perbert Nov 17 '09 at 0:45

You want to be able to swear again and would pay for the privilege?

Please read this answer on What is the rationale behind the “no cursing” rule? question:

Jeff Atwood:
If you can't effectively communicate what you need to say without resorting to lowest common denominator cursing, then keep it to yourself.

Translation:
If you are not comfortable with the [site policy], this may not be the site for you.

share|improve this answer
    
We're missing the bit where it states the "why". The why is to bypass corporate firewalls. I therefore want to implement a solution that bypasses corporate firewalls but keeps the original content intact. ANYWAY, this is not answering the question. The question is can you buy a feature. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 20:30
1  
I'm of the opinion that you should just tell your firewall admin(s) to grow-up.... That seems a bit draconian, even for my organization. –  squillman Nov 16 '09 at 20:32
2  
@squillman: Exactly. The no-swearing policy on SO is a wrong to fix a wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. We should take the high road and allow everyone to swear all they shogging want. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 20:45
    
Welbog, we can't do that cause people like Adam Davies are behind corporate firewalls. They wouldn't be able to read the site. It would be AS wrong of us to deny them access as it is to prevent people from swearing. We just need to work around the firewall. We can do it! –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 21:00
2  
I'm prepared to lose Adam Davies. –  XMLbog Nov 16 '09 at 21:04
    
Yes but you're mean. :P. I like Adam, some of his posts are very good. –  Quibblesome Nov 16 '09 at 21:11
    
@Quibblesome: we can't do that cause people like Adam Davies implement or deploy stupid corporate firewalls. FTFY –  perbert Nov 17 '09 at 0:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .