Archiving Ideas - Feedback Requested

[JackDunaway]

---

Darin.K wrote:

Decreasing SNR is bad. 

---

Did I type decrease SNR? I meant decrease NSR.... you know, just a simple keystroke miss.... all that NOT-logic is getting to me.

***EDIT*** Sweet, two posts for the low-low price of one click. Bug in the forum?

Message Edited by JackDunaway on 03-25-2010 08:31 PM

[JackDunaway]

Any internal developments or further discussion, Laura?

[Laura F.]

---

JackDunaway wrote:
Any internal developments or further discussion, Laura?

---

Excellent question.  I am asking Todd to reply to this thread since he was the one that wanted to see what everyone thought.

Thanks!

Laura

[JackDunaway]

---

Laura F. wrote:

...I am asking Todd to reply to this thread...

---

A friendly one-week ping.

[Laura F.]

Got it - forwarded to Todd

[JackDunaway]

A friendly three-week ping.  

[TCPlomp]

Why does this feel like NI is reinventing the wheel?

There are quite some methods to handle feature requests around on the web...

I think an idea should be closed after some time (1 or 2 months) for kudos. Commenting is still possible.

Then a reply must be made  by NI, these can be as short as 'Duplicate', 'Implemented', 'Beta'.

It would be very valuable that if an idea is 'Rejected' a personal message to the contributer is sent (perhaps with an NDA if applicable) with the actual reasening of the rejection.

A second improvement for the idea exchange is that a members can mark an idea as a duplicate. (perhaps just like the 'report' function). (perhaps more power to 'proven trusted' members, have a look at Stackoverflow's duplicate method where power users can close questions as duplicate by voting on the duplicate status)

If an idea is indeed a pure duplicate the idea should be closed for kudos and comments and the kudos should be transferred to the original idea (but removing kudos from people that kudoed both ideas).

Ton

[JackDunaway]

NI is not reinventing the wheel, they are relying on the Lithium Idea Exchange framework. I thumbed through Lithium's customer list and their websites a few weeks ago, and I have found probably a dozen Idea Exchanges that have the exact same format (just different colors/themes). The largest Idea Exchange by an order of magnitude is the LabVIEW Idea Exchange, then comes the 10x smaller Lithium Idea Exchange, which is an order of magnitude larger than basically all the other Idea Exchanges I have found (the rest are about as small as the LabVIEW RT Exchange, or the FPGA Exchange).

Basically, the interface is terrible, but you don't notice it as much on those tiny exchanges. Navigation on the very large LabVIEW Idea Exchange is very noticeably lacking. And somehow, it has been easy to ignore the one customer that the Exchange is least fitted for, although that customer is ironically the largest by far.

Ton, your idea about NI disclosing the reasons for accepting or rejecting an Idea should definitely be made public. Look at the Lithium Idea Exchange: the developers there actually make comments that can be viewed from the main page, they have more constructive Idea Statuses such as "Under Consideration", "Comments Requested", "Future Review (which I'm guessing is a nice way of saying "Rejected").

Anyway, the framework for some of these fundamental changes is implemented on other Idea Exchanges, it just needs to be implmented on NI's Exchanges. Even though these changes would make our Exchange a little better, it's still severely lacking in terms of sorting, navigating, commenting, Kudoing other comments...

[Laura F.]

Sending another reminder to Todd.  He's been traveling the last few weeks.  Todd - when you are able to reply, can you please add your thoughts about whether or not comments should be able to have Kudos?

Thanks!

Laura

[JackDunaway]

Thanks Laura, for the pingback. With regards to my post above - which in retrospect looks whiny and as if I actually knew what was going on behind the forums.ni.com business scene - I'm just anxious to see an effort to squash the bugs and implement a few key features.