Twenty years of my life were spent testing software. I know bugs.
I've found several on WikiTree.
I believe that reporting the bugs by posting on G2G is, well, not great. And relying on the community to monitor the Tech bboard for their chance to say, "Me, too!" is, well, fantasy. Sorry, but... really.
1) A standard form for bug reports. 2) Bug reports to be "ranked" (severity, availability of workaround, priority for fixing) by a Bug Czar. 3) Bug reports to be searchable by users (users prodded to search bug reports before entering a new report -- to determine whether their bug is new or me-too.) 4) Bug Czar to "consolidate" bug reports that are duplicates. 5) Initial responsibility of Bug Czar is to cull G2G for past "reports" and their fixes, create a catalog. 6) Either Bug Czar or Tech Team to "close" a bug report after beta usage 'proves' it as sound.
My understanding of the current system is that Chris Whitten & Co. implement fixes, and the community at large tests the fixes. For posterity, and to help anyone new who joins the Tech Team, I'd like the Team to annotate the relevant bug reports whenever a fix is implemented.
Of course (!) I am willing to help. I can draft the specs (for review/comment/re-do/re-review/re-comment/etc), but I cannot implement the html or the db.
Responding to Keith H (see below)....
I'm NOT implying that Chris & Co. are sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs! With a system this big, it is a certainty that they are kept busy. And they are doing excellent work. One of the aspects of WT that I find most amazing is how robust it is. That is the first accolade I give when recommending WT. (Well, when recommending it to techies.)
Keith, if there is a bug-tracking system in place, Chris didn't mention it to me when he described how fixes/changes are done currently (which is ad hoc). If being "on top of the issues" involves a db of issues+fixes, that's good. If such a knowledge-base was accessible to users, perhaps better.