Hey Jonathan. This is a discussion here so that we can understand the use cases and who needs this feature. As you can see from the comments not everyone agrees that this needs to be implemented which is why we open it for discussion.
I appreciate your feedback here and when we discuss things like this on forem.dev, I am able to show our product team why it is important to users and why we should implement it. We still have a process for everything to be approved so having a place to discuss it first is important.
Hi Christina. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that it would be useful. I would bet most people assume they can sort their post if they needed to. In fact, most people don't use the series feature at all. If you do use it, it is a necessity for anyone who is serious about posting to dev.to. After writing enough posts, you WILL need it.
Imagine you're writing a book (not an article) about how to cook, build a model airplane, or even write code (which is basically what dev.to is). I can post Chapter 1 on cooking... chapter 2... 3,... etc.
But, say I realize my recipe is better if I add flour after. Say, I realize the wings snap into place better when done on step 3 instead of step 6. Say, my programming package gets up dated and I have to move the function declaration to a different place in step 4. I need to re-organize what I am writing in every scenario.
For me personally, I don't know what the book is until I write the chapters. Then I can put it into a LOGICAL order, since I am a programmer with a rational mindset.
This is like the IPhone allowing you to use other browsers, but not supporting PWA on anything but Safari.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I use the series feature all of the time and would find this feature to be helpful!
However it is still additional code/functionality that would need to be added as Ben mentioned in the comments above:
This was originally considered in the model, and then never really implemented. I'm not sure it needs to because the simplicity of chronological-only probably has value.
Because of this it would still need to go through our RFC (Request for comments) process.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
Hey Jonathan. This is a discussion here so that we can understand the use cases and who needs this feature. As you can see from the comments not everyone agrees that this needs to be implemented which is why we open it for discussion.
I appreciate your feedback here and when we discuss things like this on forem.dev, I am able to show our product team why it is important to users and why we should implement it. We still have a process for everything to be approved so having a place to discuss it first is important.
Hi Christina. I don't think anyone here is disagreeing that it would be useful. I would bet most people assume they can sort their post if they needed to. In fact, most people don't use the series feature at all. If you do use it, it is a necessity for anyone who is serious about posting to dev.to. After writing enough posts, you WILL need it.
Imagine you're writing a book (not an article) about how to cook, build a model airplane, or even write code (which is basically what dev.to is). I can post Chapter 1 on cooking... chapter 2... 3,... etc.
But, say I realize my recipe is better if I add flour after. Say, I realize the wings snap into place better when done on step 3 instead of step 6. Say, my programming package gets up dated and I have to move the function declaration to a different place in step 4. I need to re-organize what I am writing in every scenario.
For me personally, I don't know what the book is until I write the chapters. Then I can put it into a LOGICAL order, since I am a programmer with a rational mindset.
This is like the IPhone allowing you to use other browsers, but not supporting PWA on anything but Safari.
This is a bug.
J
I'm not disagreeing with you. I use the series feature all of the time and would find this feature to be helpful!
However it is still additional code/functionality that would need to be added as Ben mentioned in the comments above:
This was originally considered in the model, and then never really implemented. I'm not sure it needs to because the simplicity of chronological-only probably has value.
Because of this it would still need to go through our RFC (Request for comments) process.