SNIP
>>
>
>That's kind of a cop-out. You need to give SPECIFIC ideas on what you think would be better. Imagine if one of your customers suggested that some part of an app you wrote needed to be fixed, but refused to give you concrete suggestions about what they wanted changed. How useful is that? Personally, I'd be really hestitant to change anything, w/o knowing more (and I spend a LOT of time thinking about useability in my apps).
>
>Go ahead and step on some toes if you need to, to get your point across ;-)

I gave some simpler ideas and they got trounced on the basis that the current lookup features are very good. That I find it unintuitive and not fulfilling the task carried no weight.

I see the problem as (PROBABLY) basically being that a single-step procedure is wanted. I think that a multi-step procedure, consisting of at least two steps is what is really needed.
It is far simpler to just add an entry than it is to use the (unhelpful difficult to use) searching features of the list to first check if a similar request is already entered.

I long ago added items to the UT Tracker List (Feb 6/02 and April 29/02) requesting significant changes to the Wish List handling on the UT. The Feb6 item is on hold and the Apr29 item remains pending. In both cases the idea is to permit a threaded discussion of any wish before the originator added a new wish to the list. This, of course, would intrinsically eliminate duplicates.

So if this attempt is a "cop-out" then it is not from lack of trying in the past, but rather from a hope that a less detailed request - simply asking to fix the problem - might result in a better response than the prior attempts.
And my reasoning for bringing it up now is to have a better facility in place before the VFP9 list is a reality. I figure that 4-8 months is sufficient lead time to achieve that.