for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

New Features

68 watchers

JamieKai chameleon 1 May 9:34pm, 1 May 2025 20,599 posts	Quote 1 pin JamieKai chameleon Eg: Feature Request: add exciting bells and whistles to the training log. I'd vote meh, as I don't care what happens to the training log as I don't train, but I'm not against any change to it. Feature Request: change option Meh to some other descriptor. I'd vote No, because I think Meh is perfect.
SPR 1 May 9:49pm, 1 May 2025 47,657 posts	Quote Pin SPR Indifferent or lack of interest covers it for me. No is I'm interested in something around the area the feature request affects and don't like what the suggestion would do.
um 2 May 7:34am, 2 May 2025 9,541 posts	Quote Pin um Can I do a test ? Ref my latest feature request, 2064 Site safety - ie the new 'external link' warning and key click. Can we have an option to opt out, ie grant Fetch permission to re-direct us without the warning. Or maybe a pool of 'safe' sites, eg @bbc.co.uk, @rightmove.co.uk, top 10-20 of redirects? Why would 'you' vote No to that? Because you want a warning and think everyone else should have one as well? Or some other reason I've missed?
chunkywizard 2 May 7:41am, 2 May 2025 18,174 posts	Quote Pin chunkywizard You might vote No to keep your Meh count down.
SPR 2 May 7:45am, 2 May 2025 47,661 posts	Quote Pin SPR Why would you need to keep your meh count down?
♪♫ Synge ♪♫ 2 May 8:27am, 2 May 2025 53,833 posts	Quote Pin ♪♫ Synge ♪♫ um wrote:Can I do a test ? Ref my latest feature request, 2064 Site safety - ie the new 'external link' warning and key click. Can we have an option to opt out, ie grant Fetch permission to re-direct us without the warning. Or maybe a pool of 'safe' sites, eg @bbc.co.uk, @rightmove.co.uk, top 10-20 of redirects? Why would 'you' vote No to that? Because you want a warning and think everyone else should have one as well? Or some other reason I've missed? Possibly because Fetch explained that he introduced it to tighten up on some areas of online compliance and, although this seems like a pretty low-risk issue for this site (compared to, say, the BBC, who might get complaints and legal claims if they get it wrong), he doesn't know who might accidentally or intentionally post a dodgy link and so you might vote "no" because this is a small price to pay for giving Fetch a bit of peace of mind? (I didn't vote "no", by the way, just trying to answer the question.)
K5 Gus 2 May 8:39am, 2 May 2025 6,447 posts	Quote Pin K5 Gus ♪♫ Synge ♪♫ wrote: Possibly because Fetch explained that he introduced it to tighten up on some areas of online compliance ...... Where did Fetch explain why he introduced the new warning for external links ? I've just re-read his blog posts from a few weeks ago and I didn't see it mentioned there
fetcheveryone 2 May 8:47am, 2 May 2025 31,808 posts	Quote Pin fetcheveryone I might not have said it explicitly, but it is there to ‘cover my arse’ so to speak, in line with some of the guidance given in Ofcom’s risk assessments. Links posted on FE have a certain level of trust from viewers, so if one happens to be a rogue link to a malicious third party, it makes sense to me to offer a warning.
chunkywizard 2 May 8:50am, 2 May 2025 18,175 posts	Quote Pin chunkywizard SPR wrote:Why would you need to keep your meh count down? sorry, got confused. It's the Yes count that is limited to 120
SPR 2 May 9:04am, 2 May 2025 47,665 posts	Quote Pin SPR In regards to Um's request I'd vote meh because I don't need the change but not against it if Fetch thought it was possible. I wouldn't really no to request due to whether I think Fetch's time should be spent on it if it's not one that interests me (Vs not useful/ harmful to something else) as I don't think that's fair. Clearly I'd vote no to games stuff if I was doing that so that all time is spent on log and racing stuff but the site has a balance which Fetch manages.