After reading 33 of 144 pages of comments, with a range of 1244 people in agreement about a comment to 14 people agreeing, I see no rhyme or reason to what ESRI determines to be "under consideration" or even "implements." My first guess was that it had to do with ease of implementation. But no, numerous comments refer to functionality that has disappeared in ESRI "upgrades". It seems to me, that those ideas with the highest number of "promote hits" should be given consideration for implementation or re-implementation. Yet I see ideas "implemented" or "under consideration" which are way down in the number of people in agreement and those with a large number have no such labels. So I'm left to assume these ideas are not "under consideration". It would be nice if ESRI indicated what makes an idea of value to them. It seems to me that the end user should be listened to when considering functionality to be added or (horrors) taken away.