The idea is an interesting one but the value would come from effective implementation. As I said last time, implement it and if managed properly I am sure we would fine it a valuable source (we already use Steampowered forum threads but the signal to noise ration can be quite poor).
- Alfred Erik Hollensbe wrote: > About 6 months ago this was being discussed, and never came to > fruition. A *lot* of the questions/comments here these days have less > and less to do with supporting the system as much as requests to > modify it in some fashion. > > I think it would be not only wise, but prudent for valve or a > secondary party to implement a bug tracker or feature request system > that would allow people to effectively petition features/bug fixes > assigning a priority to the things that are most important to the > guys who run the servers. Obviously, it wouldn't be that bad of an > idea to tackle this in the client as well. > > The advantages for valve would be several-fold - not only would you > have a backlog of all the things that your constituents are > complaining about, but a petitioning system would allow valve to see > priority based on the number of people who are interested in seeing > this fixed. Several techniques can be used to minimize inflation of > voting for requests, but obviously won't eliminate the problem. > > The advantages for users would be several-fold as well - instead of > clogging up the list with the 400th thread that starts with, "Where > is the 64-bit VAC2 support?" One email gets out, and someone replies > with a bug number and everyone can see that the bug is marked by > valve administrators as "WON'T FIX". Not only is it clear to everyone > that the bug is already known, it's clear to everyone that valve has > no intention of tackling this problem anytime soon (if at all). > > Obviously there's a relations issue here - people are undoubtedly > going to get bent out of shape when they see something tagged as > "WON'T FIX", but in reality that's no different than the current > situation. The above-described situation actually lends to clearing > up confusion, simply because the lack of responses by staff has, in > the past, caused more problems than is really necessary. > > This simply doesn't work unless Valve and the community participates > - if one of them decides that it's not going to work, the whole point > is lost. Undoubtedly, Valve has their own internal trackers and a way > to ease the transition from moving to the public database to the > private one would be a big bonus for them, I imagine. > > So, I'll offer again - if there is significant interest by Valve and > the community, I'm willing to extend as much help as is attainable to > make this happen, whether that be writing code, providing ideas, or > administering/hosting the service. > -- > Erik Hollensbe > [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
