Family Historian User Group

Not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes. I've been wondering if the Wish List as it is operated currently is doing an adequate job for users (and ultimately therefore for CP).

Since the start of 2020, there are twenty-two entries on the Wish List (I do not know if "completed" items are removed or not, so there may well have been more). In total, these twenty-two items have received the votes of ninety-two people - an average of 4.2 per item. This figure is distorted by the one entry to have reached double figures (19 votes). If it is excluded, the average would drop to about 3.4. Two of these entries have not even had a single vote. If completed items have been removed, then of course it is likely that average votes will be higher.

By comparison, when the Wish List was created (in this format) in 2006, the first twenty-two entries received a total of 860 votes, and average of 39.1. Again, the figure is distorted by a single entry achieving 152 votes, and without that, the average would have been 33.7.

All of those early entries were logged on the same day, and there is almost certainly no doubt that as something new, this would have resulted in a lot of users looking - and voting - and the fact that many items were submitted at once would also have encouraged reasonable voting figures, as many items could be checked in a single (or a few) visits.

There is also the argument which I suspect may have a lot of merit, that maybe in its current format, FH& is far more favourably looked upon by users than it was in 2006.

However it is regarded though, there seems little doubt that an average of 4 votes per item is not exactly a ringing endorsement of a clamour for wish list items to be acted on. I have no clue how many users the product has, but even if it were as low as 1,000, this represents a miserly 0.4% of the user base. In reality I assume the user base is much higher, and so the actual percentage is likely to be much lower.

Based on these figures, CP might not be too far wrong to assume that the majority of users were pretty happy with the product. And so, in terms of demonstrating to CP what their customers are requesting, I suspect the whole concept is less than optimal in its current format. I understand that CP do encourage use of the Wish List.

I have no suggestions to put forward at present as to what changes might be implemented but wanted to open a discussion before coming to a conclusion.

If my sums are correct, then currently there are 182 items on the list, and of these 160 predate 2020, with most of the higher scores dating from 2006. Only five of the top forty were submitted later than 2011 (2016). There is no doubt an argument that if those high voted items that have been on the list for more than 11 years since 2011, and not been incorporated (for whatever reason - and CP will quite rightly have many such very legitimate reasons) then they might well be looked upon as unlikely topics for development in the next few years.

On the other hand, I suspect that in fact some of the newer items would in fact generate higher vote counts if the same level of interest in voting was present as there was in 2006, but that is of course only speculation.

A lot of "early entries were logged on the same day" because they were migrated from an earlier Wish List system.
( Much like many current KB articles were created in a cluster because they migrated from the old KB system. )
So analysis of that early entries cluster is not representative of their history.
Completed entries are not usually deleted and can be seen by ticking Show Completed.
There have been attempts in the past to purge and merge entries to try and rationalise but it takes a lot of time and effort.

None of these points negate the problem, and yes I have seen discussion before about merging.

What it needs is a fresh approach. Maybe a clean start? Why merge old threads from 2006? Start a new list (don't delete the old one) and if there's an old item that someone wants brought up again, then do so. But if its already been there 16 years there's possibly little likelihood of it being implemented. Not many new users will plough through 200 old requests to vote for their favourites.

The fact is the list is not working as it is.

In the early days of Family Historian and FHUG, the wish list items were dominated by things that were major missing features. Things like ability to have same sex couples, witnesses, plugins, rich-text, etc. lots and lots of things that we take for granted now. Every user would be regularly coming across things that FH didn't do and so would feel so strongly that they would go to the wish-list to vote for it and while they were there they'd vote for a few other things too. Most of the really obvious missing features are there now and the things that remain are generally things that will only matter to some people and very few will feel passionately about it. If you happen to have been frustrated by e.g.the inability to move items between named lists then you might go and vote for that but this is unlikely to be something that many people have thought about and it's unlikely you'll drum up much support for it. So I think anything that has got even a few votes is showing that there are people out there who will want that feature. I suspect only a tiny proportion of FH users will ever use the FHUG website and of those people only a very small number would vote on the wish-list (it requires a login to be created and to know it's there, etc.).

There's probably an argument for some kind of algorithm to calculate a score which takes into account how long something has been on the list so the ones that have only recently been added have a chance to compete with those that have been sat there for 15 years.

Everything Nick says is true except maybe the need to change the algorithm.

If the system isnt working how did 28 items including some very old ones get added in V7 so far?

What do you define as working?

How about putting the onus on the originator to prepare the full Wish List case, as I did recently for Templated Sources titles?

Moving the item to the final wish list becomes far easier, and will screen out the more trivial items on the basis that if a user isn't prepared to fully document what the issue is and how their proposed addition addresses it, they obviously don't feel that strongly about it.

Do your own prep work - don't expect Helen or Mike to do it for you. Even their time isn't infinite .

Look at it afresh is what I suggested. Even a simple change like that will potentially make a difference.

Colin,

I still don't understand what you define as 'working'.

More people voting?
More wish list items being implemented?
Wish list items being implemented quickly?

But if its already been there 16 years there's possibly little likelihood of it being implemented

Rich test was on the list for 14 years before it was implemented (probably longer, given that it was in the '2006 batch'), so I'm not convinced that 'giving up' on old items is a good idea.

Mark1834 wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2023 08:17

How about putting the onus on the originator to prepare the full Wish List case, as I did recently for Templated Sources titles?

Moving the item to the final wish list becomes far easier, and will screen out the more trivial items on the basis that if a user isn't prepared to fully document what the issue is and how their proposed addition addresses it, they obviously don't feel that strongly about it.

Do your own prep work - don't expect Helen or Mike to do it for you. Even their time isn't infinite .

Thank you, Mark. I do sometimes feel that people want to shake things up (which can be justified -- I'm not saying everything is perfect) without considering how much work it will make, and whether the 'cost' of doing it (typically delay to other things that need doing) outweighs the benefit, and often without volunteering to actually do any of that work.

I asked back in December for help with the New Wish List Request forum, to clear the backlog that hasn't made it onto the Wish List proper: Help wanted for the Wish List (21292). Many thanks to the one person who actually pitched in to help...

I just wanted to comment on this:

NickWalker wrote: ↑

13 Jan 2023 19:56

There's probably an argument for some kind of algorithm to calculate a score which takes into account how long something has been on the list so the ones that have only recently been added have a chance to compete with those that have been sat there for 15 years.

I suspect CP are perfectly capable of factoring the age of a request into their considerations without an algorithm change

And as was commented recently, CP probably have their own “no way, sunshine” rating, but that’s not for public consumption!

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

14 Jan 2023 12:14

I just wanted to comment on this:

NickWalker wrote: ↑

13 Jan 2023 19:56

There's probably an argument for some kind of algorithm to calculate a score which takes into account how long something has been on the list so the ones that have only recently been added have a chance to compete with those that have been sat there for 15 years.

I suspect CP are perfectly capable of factoring the age of a request into their considerations without an algorithm change

I wasn't really thinking about CP. I was thinking more that anyone looking at the wish list will see on the first page a list of 20 wish list items and they sorted by 'Score' and 17 of those are over 12 years old. There are huge lists of items over multiple pages and some of the more recent items don't really have a chance of surfacing unless someone is searching for a particular thing. So the current algorithm is Score = Votes x Avg Rating but if that algorithm could take into account length of time on the list or number of votes in recent years, it might just give some items a chance to gain a few more votes.

Point taken, Nick.

In practice, I suspect most users won't ever look at the Wish List unless they're pointed to a particular item to vote for, because they've surfaced their own wish for it during discussion in the forums. And maybe a few others will follow the same link because the item is of interest to them as well.

One improvement we could make to the overall process is to be more diligent in directing people to Wish List items that may be of interest to them.

Are there many items in the wish list that have been implemented but not marked as Completed?

For example, unless I'm not understanding the request, I think https://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldisp ... lwlref=567 is completed. The linked forum topic has been moved to the Closed Wish List Requests forum.

jelv wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2023 16:38

Are there many items in the wish list that have been implemented but not marked as Completed?

For example, unless I'm not understanding the request, I think https://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldisp ... lwlref=567 is completed. The linked forum topic has been moved to the Closed Wish List Requests forum.

The Closed Wish List for items that have been moved from the New Wish List Requests forum because either they've been transferred to the Wish List proper, or abandoned for lack of interest/input in putting together the content of a Wish List item. There isn't a correlation with the stats of the actual wish list item.

However, the item you've highlighted has been completed (and is now marked as such). Thanks for spotting the omission! Spotted any others ?

New Wish List Requests get Closed when the Wish List item is created.

FH V7.0 does implement most of but not entirely all of the Wish List items.
It does not allow Query Result Set rows to be highlighted.

Should we raise a separate Wish List item for the facility in Queries, Mike, so that it doesn't get 'lost'?

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2023 16:58

The Closed Wish List for items that have been moved from the New Wish List Requests forum because either they've been transferred to the Wish List proper, or abandoned for lack of interest/input in putting together the content of a Wish List item. There isn't a correlation with the stats of the actual wish list item.

Ah, I hadn't twigged that.

Is there any merit in somehow prominently indicating in the closed forum which have made it in to the Wish List proper (maybe putting the number in the topic title)? At present you have to plough through the topic

ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2023 16:58

However, the item you've highlighted has been completed (and is now marked as such). Thanks for spotting the omission! Spotted any others ?

I'll keep an eye out for them.

jelv wrote: ↑

15 Jan 2023 17:40

Is there any merit in somehow prominently indicating in the closed forum which have made it in to the Wish List proper (maybe putting the number in the topic title)? At present you have to plough through the topic

I'll try to remember... Or you could skip to the end to look for a link to the wish List or a note that it's been closed without a Wish List item raised.