Is this just rearranging deck chairs ?

On the forum theres a long thread about altering how the points in Feedback work and how they can be assigned.

I have to admit that from my perspective, and seemingly from others, the issue is not so much with gathering reports, but the “processes” that occur after gathering reports.

Currently we can assign points to reports by making them favourites. This at least indicates the 5 items each person considers high priority. And because more points go to higher priced licenses it also gives people who hold Pro and Pro+ licenses more influence when they do select a case to be a favourite.

Xojo frequently says that feedback is NOT the only criteria they use. They also consider the scope of the issue. I’m not sure how they assess this though.

Isn’t that what a lot of users making a case one of their top 5 cases _should_ indicate already ?

Even if the points system is overhauled does that changes the internal processes they have around Feedback ?

What priority _should_ a bug that causes a reproducible crash have – whether it has points assigned or not ? Or an exception that causes the IDE to lose whatever it is you’ve been working on ?

It would seem to me that those kinds of nicely reproducible bugs that cause fatal problems should have high priority regardless of how many points they have.

I’d think the KIND of case matters – sometimes more than how many points it has.

As Thom said on that thread

That’s where I think Feedback’s effort needs to be. The human element. Not to say the technical element is perfect, of course.

Thom wrote the initial versions of Feedback – they been updated since – but he’s not wrong. He worked at Xojo. As did I.

Case report acquisition isnt the issue. And in my opinion rearranging or redefining the points system is just rearranging deck chairs and not dealing with the actual problem.