Just move “closed” Wishlist items to related forum, keeping thread live

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

There is never a good reason to kill a thread, I'd suggest. 

[Bricklyne Clarence]

....but then that would remind people that there are things that users might want to see brought to the program - ....or at least even considered for development - ...that they (GS) are simply not interested in doing,......or even seeing discussed.

And nothing good ever comes of that.....

/s

[Kalib Stewart]

Seeing a few of these start to pop up; very very concerning considering they've already gutted everything meaningful from the original roadmap. Just had one closed discussing the expansion of profile modifiers and GOs to composites. Guess if the threads exist and they gain traction, GS can't pretend they've never seen them.

[Bricklyne Clarence]

On the one hand, .....yes, it is disconcerting that they are starting to do this to quite a few wishlist topics.

But on the other hand,....looking at the overall picture and what's transpired so far, we can't really say that any of this is surprising, or we didn't see this coming.

And it ties to the Roadmap as well, and what they did to that too.

In fact, if you go back to when they first introduced their official public roadmap (And the kind of joke it was that they got slammed for because it looked like a PR buzzword salad, that they harriedly slapped together to shut people up rather than a real attempt at publishing a serious roadmap), I said at the time that I would hold my powder and give them the benefit of doubt to see if they were actually serious about changing course and engaging users in a more substantive and serious way in starting with a Roadmap, or whether they were just doing it all, as mentioned, just to shut people up and as a form of digital lip service .....just to say they did.

I guess we now have the answer to that question.

And of course it wasn't a good look that their own Roadmap told on them and showed that they were not only spending, but were planning on spending even more resources in the future on non-Architecture-centric features that people weren't asking for, while ignoring those that people were. And then they went to the (old) Wishlist forum and cherry-picked a bunch of stuff they felt were popular and threw them into the 'Idea Pool' to make people think or believe they might potentially address some of them in the future. Even though were was no timeline for how long it could take things to get from the Idea Pool to actual development and finally into the program as fully realized features. No (provided) mechanism to vote for more priority for features. No explanation for what got prioritized or how or even if there was or would be any way of getting additional features added to the Roadmap that were showing up in the Idea Pool.

The followed that up with their Spring-cleaning of the Wishlist Section - which, on the surface seemed like a good idea and a prudent thing to do, .......only if it helped streamline the pipeline from Wishlist to the Roadmap, and help to focus development efforts on their end.

Except that's not the reason they were doing it.

They just wanted to get rid of the record of their decades of ignoring users wishes and essentially acknowledging that they couldn't deal with the end result of their own "absentee-Landlord"-ism of their own user forum. Or at least that seemed like it was one of the reasons.

So once we had the popularly voted wishes from the old forum that now constituted the official new "Wishlist", they then locked the Wishlist forum to commenting, voting or providing feedback or asking questions by anyone that wasn't already on Subscription.

Which means any Perpetual license holders who might still be deciding whether to make the switch based on what they saw from the new Wishlist, or how they (GS) planned to address them, you were S** out of luck.

It was like a big middle finger to majority of the users, that they tried to justify by (at least some of their apologists did ) that since subscription users had shown their commitment to using the program into the future, they earned the privilege to continue participating in its development via the Wishlist section in this way.

How's that working out for you guys now with all the topics these days that seem to be ending up in the "On Hold" or "Closed" categories.

What even is the point of either of these two things today?

(The Wishlist Section that only 'some' can participate, and whose 'participation' ultimately means nothing. And a Roadmap that's pretty much reverted into essentially a internal company memo with empty promises at best, and that really has no bearing or connection to the needs of the people's concerns its supposed to be addressing - i.e. the end-users.)

I guess they figure since they're forcing everyone into subscription now and are going to get your money regardless, there's no more need for any more of the pretense like they give a you-know-what about what users think, are asking for, need or want in the program going forward.

This should be a cautionary note for anyone still undecided about making the switch to subscription or even sticking with Archicad altogether as a tool moving forward.

[thesleepofreason]

Spot on. Add to this the fact that they simply removed users access to their own wishes that didn't make the clean up - show how much they value our time and effort.. And yeah, a delusional threshold of 200 votes in six months is typical of how GS develop things - rather than letting users play things out and then adapt if needed they implement some limitations makings the whole feature useless...