First, I want to acknowledge that I pay nothing, can expect nothing, and for any functionality in whatever form or shape, I can only be grateful. This is not a complaint, but feedback for the potential benefit of the project.
As a reasonably dedicated user who has observed LogSeq’s evolution and development for some time, I believe that the direction of the development needs to be reevaluated.
The core functionality of LogSeq remains unstable. Numerous bugs concerning the core functionality have been reported a long time ago and are still not fixed. Some rough edges in the core functionality have not been addressed.
It appears that the development is focused on adding shiny new features rather than ensuring that the foundation the tool is built on is stable. While these features might be very useful and provide value, I feel it is a significant mistake to invest effort into them before the core of LogSeq has received a substantial overhaul.
There seems to be insufficient bandwidth to maintain the current features, and developing new ones appears to lead to an even greater backlog. (And it’s worse than a linear effect, due to the combinatorial effects.)
As a single example, a user created a list of
<% current page %>-related issues two months ago. A screenshot as of today:
Eight mentioned issues, the first at issue height ~3 000 (today’s is ~10 000). Most or all seem to be actual bugs, at a quick glance. And eight green icons: all eight still open.
I am personally not that affected by any of these bugs (although I’m sure others are) - I provided the above just as a snapshot example.
Symptomatic is also the user’s offer to help out along with a question on how, with no response so far. Again: I’m not saying we can demand such answers from the developers or other involved volunteers. Rather, my point is that I believe not prioritizing answering such questions, and instead developing new features, is a mistake. It has been my view that a general problem with LogSeq is that many reported issues, and not just recent ones, haven’t even received a single comment - usually a poor sign for a project.
A related issue is the weakness of the documentation in combination with questions on this forum asking to clarify undocumented behavior often going unanswered.
I will finally point out an observed improvement - @tienson seems to be more active on this forum now than before, sometimes chiming in and engaging with the users.
I hope, for the best of LogSeq which indeed has potential, that the current development strategies are revised and evaluated.
: They do not seem to be duplicates, or not most of them. It is possible the user selected only opened issues, but there’s not much of a selection effect: searching for closed issues on
<% current page %> doesn’t yield many results.