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.

This question already has an answer here:

There are lots of questions tagged that don't have a status-* response.

How do we interpret this?
Is it because they are declined by default?
We just have to wait for a response (the team is very busy)? Is Jeff the only one that reviews this questions?

I suppose the ones that have negative votes may (or may not) be declined by default, but there are quite a few with some to a lot upvotes that should have an official answer.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by gnat, Jim, Bart, Tobias Kienzler, Hugo Dozois Jul 26 '13 at 14:15

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

    
The feature-requests tag in this question is intended –  jmfsg Feb 24 '10 at 14:54
19  
Take your pick: Because Jeff is too lazy to respond. Because Jeff is too busy to respond. Because Jeff thinks your requests are stupid. Because Jeff is too busy thinking other requests are stupid to look at yours. Because Jeff is too lazy because he's spent too much time busily looking at stupid requests like yours. Because Jeff is too busily stupid your lazy spent much requests looking too thinking other yours respond because Jeff. –  XMLbog Feb 24 '10 at 15:09
    
@urd, I'm not just talking about mine, but your point is taken –  jmfsg Feb 24 '10 at 15:12
1  
I've asked the same question on meta.se (meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3193/…), I guess it is partly down to the sheer weight of numbers –  Rich Seller Feb 24 '10 at 15:28
    
@rich, be advised, SO is not SE (including the development team and general practices) –  jmfsg Feb 24 '10 at 15:32
    
@Downvoter, I'm aware of that, but many of the same principles apply. Apparently including not responding to all the feature requests that quickly –  Rich Seller Feb 24 '10 at 17:29
    
@urdnot: i think that covers all the possibilities right there. especially the descent into inanity and incomprehensibility there at the end. –  quack quixote Feb 25 '10 at 2:33
    
Woah, wait a minute - I realize that SO and all of it's components are Jeff's baby - but the responsibility to answer/look at all of them by himself is overwhelming! This does not seem like a good business practice at all - I thought he had a team to help him with this. If he doesn't he should. –  rlb.usa Mar 2 '10 at 16:57
    
see also: Why don't we get responses from bug reports? –  gnat Jul 26 '13 at 12:27

2 Answers 2

up vote 18 down vote accepted

I work in another publicly accessible community, where bug reports and feature requests are happily solicited from the userbase.

We have thousands of open idea requests (the codebase is nearing 20 years old), and close only a sizeable fraction of those opened regularly.

From our perspective, the idea requests are welcome, but not all of them are actionable; some are brilliant, and are implemented immediately because they work well with our vision; some are entirely incompatible and are closed/denied.

The majority fit in between; they're ideas that would work with a bit of tweaking, or a bit of thought, but aren't necessarily on the primary development roadmap, so don't get our attention immediately. Nor do they warrant closing, because they are relevant, merely not timely or important.

Because our developers have their own ideas, their own neverending todo lists, we treat the open idea pile more as inspiration than as a roadmap. There's very much a feeling of "we'll get to it when we've run out of other things to do", but this never happens in practice.

Not to speak for Jeff and the others, but I think it's a normal thing to have to choose between two equally bad things in a public forum like this: either responding to most feature requests with a "denied", and so risk upsetting the folk who love the community enough to contribute with their own ideas; or leave some of them dangling because they're not immediately and obviously wrong, but to do something worthwhile with them takes more time and effort than the idea deserves right now.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 very well put. –  Pëkka Feb 24 '10 at 15:49
1  
They have a status-deferred status, which I guess wil fit in here. It's not yet decided what to do with it, but I could be wrong. –  Ikke Mar 2 '10 at 8:29
    
@Ikke: IMHO [status-deferred] here would mean "we are going to implement this - not right now, but in the future". It has a feeling of approval to it - something which may not be warranted in most cases: there's approval, disapproval, and indifference. –  Piskvor May 5 '11 at 12:21

As Jeremy notes it is, sadly, kind of a lose-lose proposition to follow up on every single feature req.

As always,please vote up feature requests you agree with! I assure you that I regularly look at the highest voted bugs and feature requests which are not tagged with a [status-*]. Anything with a lot of votes is much more likely to be acted upon... So convince you fellow meta users that your request has merit, first!

share|improve this answer
    
I wonder what happens if this question gets to the top of that list...? –  Antony Mar 2 '10 at 2:43
    
The universe explodes –  Mark Henderson Mar 2 '10 at 2:55
1  
A feature request stack overflow? –  perbert Mar 2 '10 at 3:12
    
@Antony, this question is not a feature-request –  jmfsg Mar 2 '10 at 15:36
    
@downvoter - phew, that was close –  Antony Mar 2 '10 at 21:48
    
I assume, paying 5c/upvote to captcha-solvers from China wouldn't be so welcome? –  РСТȢѸФХѾЦЧШЩЪЫЬѢѤЮѦѪѨѬѠѺѮѰѲѴ Jul 26 '13 at 11:46

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