Could the team try to leave at least a little explanation when tagging a feature-request post with the "status-declined" tag? On Uservoice there was usually a brief explanation.

I'm not saying it should be mandatory or anything, it would just be nice.

  • 11
    -100, Hell no! status-declined. – akarnokd Jul 18 '09 at 21:16
  • 8
    i was thinking it'd be ironic if this question were tagged "status-declined" with no explanation... – Kip Jul 18 '09 at 21:44
  • +1 I wish I knew why this was declined – juan Jul 18 '09 at 22:04
  • 1
    No​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ – Brad Gilbert Aug 3 '09 at 18:14
  • No ironic status-declined without a comment? I'm disappoint. – Aaron Bertrand Jan 7 '14 at 16:36

Let me one-up this:

All ideas that have the status-declined tag MUST have a reason behind the declination.


There is now a FAQ item (it's pretty new)

Why was my feature/bug declined or closed without explanation?

Meta Stack Overflow has been around for a while, and as a result, many issues have been considered in the past. If your feature request has been marked as [status-bydesign] or [status-declined] without a comment, it is likely because there is another question that approaches the same topic and a conclusion has been reached. Perhaps you could try searching for your idea with different search terms, hopefully that will find the original discussion.

  • 2
    in that case "reason for declined" could be just a url, or better yet "closed, duplicate" – matt wilkie Jul 20 '10 at 8:28
  • @Matt The whole point is that they don't have time to clean up after the people who can't be bothered to search for themselves. These issues have come up dozens of time. – devinb Jul 20 '10 at 11:20
  • 1
    oh right, closed-duplicate means the mod doing the extra work to find exactly which url. So perhaps they should have a "declined, previously considered" picklist. It's still up to the poster to find the old question, but at least they know it's been given some thought and not just rejected out of hand. – matt wilkie Jul 21 '10 at 16:05
  • 1
    @matt, that's a reasonable thought. At this point though, it can be safely assumed that this is the reason. If it isn't previously considered they nearly always state a reason. Although the answer could be spread across multiple MSO posts, blogs, and podcasts. Not the most userfriendly I admit. – devinb Jul 21 '10 at 16:07
  • ahhh, then the word "likely" should be removed. – matt wilkie Jul 21 '10 at 17:18
  • Yeah, but the big, red, DECLINED, just visually looks like a big 'F*** you; you're an idiot for asking'. Given that the whole point of StackExchange is community participation, it's rather putting-off. – nicodemus13 Aug 9 '11 at 14:33

Jeff and the team has left reasons where applicable. Some features get asked more then once or there has been a detailed discussion. Just as we can down-vote anonymously and without reason I assume we could give the team the same level of understanding and let them decline a feature without reason.

  • 1
    But we know who declined them anyway, as the last editor gets noted on the question. – akarnokd Jul 18 '09 at 21:47
  • 1
    True - But someone may still go in an edit again. I have seen a few of these declined one's popup up again. – BinaryMisfit Jul 18 '09 at 21:58
  • Who would edit a post having a big red "status-declined"? If you leave it that way, its an implicit pointer to the person who we should thank the deed :) – akarnokd Jul 18 '09 at 22:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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