Is there an obvious reason we are currently limited to 5 total votes? Or is this mostly arbitrary? I find my self un-voting previous topics to reclaim a vote which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Under the current system an idea with a lot of votes is probably a good one as each of your 5 votes is important.
Yes, but are there only five ideas or suggestions that might be good ones (to vote on)?
A chance to use one of the few Latin phrases I know, reductio ad absurdum. If every poster had unlimited votes and every poster voted for each new idea there would be nothing to separate the good from the also rans. Also Topaz cannot work on a huge list of problems at a time. They I believe have a group they work in in a controlled sprint. Their staffing is limited as well.
I believe there is a fair amount of spread between 5 and unlimited/infinite? And the 5 is essentially lifetime and therein lies the problem. As I have voted on things 2-3 years ago that didn’t go anywhere. So, when something new comes along I have to go back and reclaim an old vote which is cumbersome.
I can see 5 votes/year perhaps being reasonable.
As far as limited staff…the vote tally is a suggestion (feedback), not a commitment ie the devs are free to ignore them if they so choose (based on my experience, they have).
I like the idea of 5 per year and/or clear the vote if an idea is accepted or rejected. I have only voted a couple of times so I have not run up against the limit.