It could mean a lot of things.
1. We don't understand the request.
2. We think it's interesting, but not enough to commit.
3. We might do it.
4. We'll never do it.
5. We think it's silly.
6. It will be in the next build.
That's often enough. At least the posts are being acknowledged if you respond with something like that.
And I know that you try to read everything, but more than a few times it feels like I've requested a feature/change, not heard anything, then someone else posts it and it gets a "that's a good idea" type of response.
I don't mean that there's any malice there, just that with the volume of posting that happens here at times, it's easy to overlook things. Or mark things as "I'll come back to that later" and then forgetting about it, or never finding the time for it.
As I said, I have enough difficulty keeping track of my own topics for features/issues here, while trying to keep up with the forums, so I don't know how you manage it.
Just today I found out that there was a
post back in January asking for help in one of the topics I had responded to, which had gone unnoticed. (I've since contacted the user to see if they still need help)
I have managed to not only create two topics on the same issue before, but forgotten that I had already determined what the cause of the issue was (
the way that Zone Switch rules are evaluated) and wasted time investigating it again, forgetting that I already had my answer for why it doesn't work.
We look for multiple reports of the same problem, and these tend to show up very quickly. One-off reports may be bugs, but they often turn out to be new entries for the Weird and Wonderful thread.
The problem is that it can be easy to ignore genuine problems if you only look at the number of responses they get to determine whether something is an issue or not.
There are issues which I have reported that have largely gone ignored because it was deemed to "not be a problem" though every month or so there is a post or two from someone else reporting the same thing. They're not show-stopping problems, but issues that just don't seem to have that critical mass behind them to be noticed or actually get something done.
In recent memory, those CUE file changes took a long time to get a response that was anything other than "deal with it" - which I'm sure was not your intent, because I understand that when you have to deal with this volume of issues it is very easy to be curt in your response - but even as more and more people reported issues, it seemed to be getting ignored because your personal libraries were not affected.
After roughly 18 months of reporting problems, the high DPI rendering issues are only getting looked at now that Matt has decided to buy a 4K monitor.
I can understand how this happens, but when every single person buying a device with a high DPI screen had these issues and it was getting ignored... that's a big problem.
It took several months (6 if I recall correctly) of me reporting a bug where SACD playback would always skip part of the audio during playback before it got any attention, despite that being 100% reproducible and seemingly a quick fix once someone actually took a look at it. I don't know how no-one else noticed it (or at least why it went unreported - which is not the same thing) but if I'm spending the time to set up test cases on a problem and document them, it's probably a real issue.
There are still severe performance degradations in certain areas of the program due to changes made several versions ago. You may not be directly receiving reports about them because users are under the impression that "that's just how it is" or their use-case means that it's not a problem for them (e.g. a PC dedicated solely for music playback) or they are unaware of why it happens - because they have not spent a lot of time investigating it. I still have to use MC18 if I want to do multi-room SACD playback. (v18 can handle 18+ channels, v19/20 choke with 6)
And when it's all down to one person, you can run into what amounts to "well I would
never think to use the program that way, so why would anyone else?" (i.e. we think it's silly).
Well what I say to that is that there have been features implemented that I have basically thought "why would anyone want that?" and then several months later I find myself using it. (at the same time, it's often true that I still can't understand why X was added to the program or still exists)
It was certainly not my intent for a post like this to end up here when responding to that original post, and it probably comes off as being a lot more negative than I intend it to.
But the time I have to spend on the forums here these days is increasingly limited, so it is what it is.
