Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Informing community users of new permissible features

Parent

Informing community users of new permissible features

+2
−12

It seems that permissible features which are voted up considerably will be added to a community. By "permissible" I mean those features which are not rejected by the community team due to some policies or technical considerations.

However, as we know well, only a small part of any community members participate in voting on feature-request meta posts because many people either are unaware of such requests or may think that their votes unlikely have a significant impact on adding a new feature to their community.

So, I think it is not a bad idea to add the following feature:

When a feature request is considered as permissible, a notification is sent to any user. In the notification or in the meta post there is an option like "I am not interested" so that a user can vote on it to show their indifference to acceptance or rejection of the proposed feature.

So, with the above feature the community team can see better how much interest in a feature exists among community users.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+3
−1

I disagree. I think the users involved in the vote should be the users who are already involved in Meta.CD or the meta of a given community site. Just like each community has its own set of conventions, so does meta. I think it would be detrimental to meta conversations overall if we increase the noise by polling the community at large for every single thing. I counter-propose two ideas:

  1. Occasionally, manually (not automatically!) ask for broad community input on a meta topic. Leave it up to each community to decide when/how to do that.

  2. Promote participation in meta generally, with an educational onboarding process.

(To be clear, this isn't a feature request by itself, but a counterproposal to OP to use existing functionality to do something similar to the request.)

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
General comments
luap42‭ wrote about 4 years ago

We can feature stuff network-wise (as the Abilities thing currently) if they are super-important. Also, we also look at per-Community metas and don’t miss discussions there.

Skipping 1 deleted comment.