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.
Informing community users of new permissible features
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.
Please, no. With modern technology, we all get way too many nagware messages as it is. Let's not have Codidact add to …
In addition to points already raised (two links) in answers here, Codidact already supports network-wide featuring of po …
I disagree. I think the users involved in the vote should be the users who are already involved in Meta.CD or the meta o …
Please, no. With modern technology, we all get way too many nagware messages as it is. Let's not have Codidact add to that.
It's easy enough to visit meta occasionally. And, there is already a mechanism to sign up for notifications for things like new questions.
There is no problem to solve here.
0 comment threads
In addition to points already raised (two links) in answers here, Codidact already supports network-wide featuring of posts; that functionality is currently being used for Coming soon: new abilities system and changes to reputation.
Nothing prevents administrators from using that to feature something like Recent feature changes to the Codidact software, or even a specific announcement post, when there are large changes. That shouldn't be done with every release, however; keep in mind that Codidact software updates happen often, and may be everything from minor bug fixes to major rework (such as the abilities system).
The exact same functionality can of course just as well be used to feature a post seeking feedback on a proposal for especially a large-scale change.
Of course, the more that gets used for "mundane" information, the more people are going to ignore it. So it should really only be used for those cases where network-wide dissemination of the information is very important, or even critical.
Either way, there is no need to force the information (or question) down peoples' throats. For those who care there are already the tools to solve it (to the extent that it, indeed, is even a problem to be solved), and for those who don't care (in truth, the vast majority of your likely typical visitor or even account holder), a push notification is just noise and, frankly, spam.
1 comment thread
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:
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.
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.)
0 comment threads