Survey tool for feature suggestions

[SQuser]

Sorry if I write again about the unfortunate procedure for collecting and weighting feature suggestions.
And sorry that I’m doing it here under the feature suggestions, but it’s basically also a feature suggestion.

This forum is used by A&H, as recently confirmed by Keith, to collect “+1” for feature suggestions.
A trivial suggestion (softkey with page bookmark) would have with 18 too few “+1” (in the main thread (!) – the others are not so easy to find) to even have a chance.
But the search functions for finding such a topic are completely inadequate:
– I cannot search exclusively in the feature suggestions in a forum (e.g. SQ).
– I cannot even search exclusively in the forum of the model that interests me (e.g. SQ).
– I cannot even search for a topic title, only within the text.
I therefore only find posts where the request appears a second time in the text additional to the title.
So a suggestion, no matter how good, has no chance of getting support if it cannot be found at all.

The “SQ feature suggestions” forum alone currently has around 900 topics with 5000 posts.
No user will browse through them to find what they are looking for.
Thats why a suggestion has only a small chance of getting a few “+1” if it is pushed back up more or less randomly.
A fair selection for new features cannot be derived from this at all – but that is how it is handled.

If A&H seriously wants to do this, they should create a kind of table (survey tool) separated by models with the names of the features,
ideally also the links to the topics (possibly also to several with the same issue), the current yes votes and the option for every logged-in user to tick or remove a box.
It could be sorted automatically so that the most voted ones are at the top.
This way everyone could see what the most likely candidates are and which of them they support in the ranking.
A&H could present its own suggestions and quickly find out whether there is any need for them among the user.

And one more thing:
I have already expressed the theory in 2 threads that the processing power of the SQ may already be reaching its limits.
With add-ons, for example, 8 multiband compressors and 48 vintage compressor + tube emulations can be used simultaneously.
That’s pretty intense.
A&H must have read that too, but it wasn’t denied …

[tourtelot]

I, being happy with the capacity of my SQ6 to do what I need on any given day, see this constant push for updates and upgraded features as akin to someone buying a Toyota Corolla and wanting to build it up into a track racer.

Maybe can be done, but perhaps the better choice is to buy a car more suited to track racing. A&H makes these upgraded panels. They are more expensive for a reason.

D.

[SQuser]

Please don’t misunderstand me:
I’ve since given up expressing any wishes.
One of them was an improved SOF signaling, for example.
But what the heck – I have Mixing Station.
But it’s basically about improvements and further developments.
And maybe the Corolla buyer would certainly think differently about if Toyota actually offered you the opportunity to express requests for improvements.
Extras can not only be useful, they can also increase the value – and are also an incentive for future buyers.

[KeithJ A&H]

@SQuser

You should not apologise.
Regarding your frustrations with this platform, we are currently looking at alternatives that will hopefully make things a lot better for all of us!

On the feature suggestions and how they are collected and prioritised –
As you might imagine, we receive a lot of feature suggestions every day through emails/support tickets/phone calls/social DM’s – We direct all users to the feature suggestion sections here to keep them all in one place and so they can be commented on by other users. It also allows people to simply add a ‘+1’ if they agree and would also like to see that feature prioritised.
So this *is* where we take all user feedback and suggestions from, but I should clarify that it’s not a voting system where the most requested feature *will* be added. I appreciate it can look that way though, and we have been able to add many of the feature suggestions that have come from here in the past few years.
So the community contributes heavily to the prioritisation of the ‘R’ part of ‘R&D’, but there many other variables e.g. Distributor and dealer feedback, the complexity of the feature, available time, plans for the future, technical advancements or constrictions… which affect the ‘D’ part.
The main reasons we ask that people search for an existing post is to keep the discussions in the same place and make it easier to be counted, but it’s not that we would only pick up on the longer threads as it seems you’re suggesting.

We try to jump in if something definitely isn’t possible to prevent people thinking it might be (and wasting their time posting about it), but even if we don’t post on the topic/thread directly, every single post here is seen and noted. There are also suggestions which may not be possible with the current hardware, but that we take into account when developing new products.

And yes, we have seen some posts suggesting there will be no more development for SQ, but never comment on what may or may not come in future for pretty simple reasons.
If we say something is coming and it does, the reaction is ‘well that’s what you said was coming’ = neutral.
If we say something is coming and it doesn’t, the reaction is ‘but you promised this!’ = negative.
If we say something is not coming, the reaction is ‘but I wanted it’ = negative (but as mentioned, we will say if something is impossible).
Lastly, we absolutely welcome suggestions, it helps us to build better products and we try to get as much as we can into updates to satisfy as many users as possible – but we will always recommend basing a purchasing decision on what the product does today. We definitely wouldn’t want someone to spend their money on the promise of something that might not make it in, or be delayed for some reason.

Thanks,
Keith.

[SteffenR]

Thanks, Keith, for the clarification.
And I welcome the intention for a better place/implementation of this forum.

Since the community is growing, it needs better possibilities.

[Brian]

Here is my own opinion….. I would simply say that if a feature request is broadly supported where it would have a lot of “likes” or +1, A&H is WELL aware of it. I’m not saying the forum doesn’t bring ideas to be considered (I think it does), but it plays a very small role in the overall process. I suspect their discussions with distributors, integrators, and touring musicians play a much larger role.

So while you should keep bringing ideas to the table through the forum, I wouldn’t get too caught up in the process.

[SteffenR]

But a modern approach to the community wouldn’t be that bad.

[Brian]

“But a modern approach to the community wouldn’t be that bad.”

100%. This forum software is terrible all the way around. A refresh would be greatly appreciated!

[Søren Steinmetz]

“Modern approach”

As long as they do not degrade it towards “facebook” substandard.
A proper forum is much preferred, perhaps nore like ControlBooth or similar.

[SteffenR]

The Steinberg Forum is a very good example of how it could be done.

[Author]

Posts