Requested feature overview description.
Finally decided to bring this up. The "recent tags" that comes up by default when you start editing are mostly useless unless you take advantage of how it works. The problem is that it's way too short and shows tags already in place leaving little to no room for new ones.
Another neat feature would be a new "related tags" option (what's the proper word here?). One that would show all the tags from the previous page you saw or edited that isn't in the post you're currently editing.

Why would it be useful?
This would be useful because it would save a lot of time tagging multiple posts. Especially when you're tagging related posts such as comics or when you're are hunting specific missing tags. If the recent tags only showed tags you previously entered it would be more effective. Even more so if it remembered tags from several edited posts. It's possible there might be a easy fix coding wise. The current "recent tags" show the tags from the last post you edited from top to bottom. If the tags you submitted are written in the beginning of the text box it passes on to the next post you edit. Unfortunately the tags you click in are pasted at the end so they aren't passed to your next edit. I circumvent this by opening several post tabs so I can submit the same tags to multiple posts efficiently.
The fix I had in mind is if the site would paste the tags you click to the beginning of the tag edit box, effectively making the recent tags your recent tags.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
As far as I know only the tag edit would be affected.

You filled the request form incorrectly. You are not supposed to replace the questions with your answers, you are supposed to write the answers on the line after the question.

hiekkapillu said:
You filled the request form incorrectly. You are not supposed to replace the questions with your answers, you are supposed to write the answers on the line after the question.

Edited. Thanks for letting me know.

Sorrowless said:
Edited. Thanks for letting me know.

It's still the same. You are supposed to do it like this:

Not like this:
[b]*insert answer here*[/b]
[b]*insert answer here*[/b]
[b]*insert answer here*[/b]

Forgive me but I can't grasp how they want me to do this.
Are you saying I should do this x3 because I have several suggestions? The last two seems correct to me. They would all be useful for the same reason and the features change only the editing.

Do they want the results I added to the suggestions down to the "Why would it be useful" section? If so the posting guidelines would be more informative if it stated they want the results in that section as well, not just why it would be useful.

Is this edit better? I skimmed through the guidelines too fast. The example shows the changes which makes it useful. The why and how.

I appreciate you trying to help, hiekkapillu but you aren't very clear.

Sorrowless said:
Is this edit better? I skimmed through the guidelines too fast. The example shows the changes which makes it useful. The why and how.

I appreciate you trying to help, hiekkapillu but you aren't very clear.

It's still the same. What I mean is that you formatted it incorrectly. You left out completely the titles, and instead you replaced the titles with what is supposed to go under the title.

This is one of the titles:
[b]Requested feature overview description.[/b]
You are supposed to leave the text inside it untouched and write your answer to it on the line after it outside of the brackets, but instead you removed the title, and wrote your answer where the title is meant to go.

This is how it should look like:

Now take a moment to compare them. I do not know how any more clearer I can make this.

Oh. Completely slipped me since I didn't know you were talking about titles.