Given the huge resentment that is out there for the change in sort order for responses, I think that a problem has been identified. The community wants to feel that they own the site. Some of the most active members on SO are fairly active here on META too. People want to feel that they are heard, but it seems as if they don't feel like they are a part of the process when it comes to new code releases for the SO sites. Regardless of whether or not they are included does not matter as they "feel" like they weren't and that is something we should try to fix.

Personally, I think the community has a voice, but does not own the site. Nobody in the community pays the hosting bills, developer's salaries, etc. So when it comes to making changes, the community doesn't have the final say. However, I think that with sites that are heavily community oriented, a little transparency on things that are included in a next release or planned for a future release would not hurt anyone or their feelings. At least they know when to expect the change and had an opportunity before the fact to voice some concerns.

I know there are tags for planned, declined, etc., but it doesn't give details as to when it will be included in a release or anything of that nature.

Lastly, I really appreciate the work Jeff and team have done on the SO sites. I've saved months worth of time in solving some issues and none of that would have happened without SO.


I regularly browse the list of feature requests by votes, like so:


If you want a [feature-request] implemented, vote for it -- or convince others to vote for it!

Here's a list of feature requests that have been implemented to date.


In general, you can safely assume the highly voted [bug] and [feature-request] items are being worked on.

  • 1
    I went back and looked at the feature request that generated the change in question. The request dealt with boosting late answers. The accepted answer, not the highest voted answer BTW, was the one containing the suggestion that was implemented. The highest voted (community-approved) answer was to address the issue through commenting, highlighting better answers. Given the capriciousness in choosing what to implement, it's not clear to me that even if I followed this particular sorting algorithm and voted on every request, that it would actually impact what you choose to implement.
    – tvanfosson
    Aug 27 '09 at 16:18

I gotta think that most of the angst over this latest change can be blamed on an unfortunate coincidence: it was implemented the day after a lengthy discussion of a well-known "gaming" technique promoted by a SO user and blogger. The change does nothing to address this problem, but the timing made them appear to be related.

The change itself was actually announced as a response to a request for a means of promoting late answers to questions where numerous answers had already been posted. This was identified early on, but as the change does not appear to do much to achieve that goal either, it was largely ignored. If we'd known that particular suggestion (there were several attached to the request, including two others in the same answer) would be implemented, i suspect it would have gained far more attention and prompted a good deal more discussion.

For that reason, i'm in favor of this suggestion.


Given all the talk about delivery and controlling customer expectations that Joel has had over the years I think it is reasonable to have a publish road-map or a release features list (published when the feature-set is frozen) to the 'customers' of the stackexchange code (both the coming commercial customers and the SO/SU/SF/Meta users.)

You must log in to answer this question.

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