I know I own the sticky, but I'm suggesting this because I don't want to just add random ideas to the list if they don't even deserve to be rejected.

Anyway, people suggest cloud lists to Scratch quite a lot. It's understandable, as it could be a convenient way to store data in a list. However, in the forums, the Scratch Team hasn't really commented on the possibility, and I don't think they're likely to add them, because:

1. This could allow people to bypass the 10 variable limit (unless cloud lists were limited to only one list allowed with 10 entries, which is unfeasible).
   
   
2. It can be worked around using cloud variables.
   
   
3. A Scratch Team member (@designerd) had commented on this saying “Cloud Lists are not something we plan on adding any time soon or ever. Sorry for the confusion.”
   

Since it doesn't seem like the Scratch Team plans on adding this feature to Scratch, I think there should be a “formal” rejection so I can add it to the list. That way, no one gets confused in the future.

Unless it seems like I can already add it, based on the comment by @designerd? It would be nice if a Scratch Team member gave a sort of notice on the forums, though — and none of the “cloud list” suggestion topics that I've seen were closed by a Scratch Team member.

What do you guys think?

When was the “Cloud Lists are not something we plan on adding any time soon or ever. Sorry for the confusion.” said? If it was a long time ago, the ST might have changed their minds.

support, i think cloud lists were actually once on the 1st rejected suggestions list

VFDan wrote:

When was the “Cloud Lists are not something we plan on adding any time soon or ever. Sorry for the confusion.” said? If it was a long time ago, the ST might have changed their minds.

It was said about 3 months ago on @designerd's profile. Not too hard to find if you scroll through.

As a result, I wouldn't consider 3 months to be a “long time”.

I think you should ask @designerd or another member of the ST for clarification about why it's rejected. Besides, it seems pretty clear that it's rejected to me, so I'm sure you should add it to the list.

NilsTheBest wrote:

I think you should ask @designerd or another member of the ST for clarification about why it's rejected. Besides, it seems pretty clear that it's rejected to me, so I'm sure you should add it to the list.

@designerd doesn't respond often. I think I might ask @thisandagain next week.

There would probably need to be something in the wording allowing for cloud lists which don't just act like normal lists. For example, this could allow for a cloud list where each user can only write to “their” one item.

Za-Chary wrote:

VFDan wrote:

When was the “Cloud Lists are not something we plan on adding any time soon or ever. Sorry for the confusion.” said? If it was a long time ago, the ST might have changed their minds.

It was said about 3 months ago on @designerd's profile. Not too hard to find if you scroll through.

As a result, I wouldn't consider 3 months to be a “long time”.

If it was 3 months ago, then support! It's not a long time, it was after the release of 3.0.

Support only if the Scratch Team makes it more clear on whether or not this(the cloud lists) suggestion is rejected.

BUMP
Someone suggested cloud lists again.

Until further notice, support

Za-Chary wrote:

BUMP
Someone suggested cloud lists again.

Yeah, at this point I think you should add it to the rejected suggestions list. While they would be a nice feature that would enable new kinds of cool projects - the issues with them still remain. Cloud variables have proven to be expensive to maintain and subject to abuse. Cloud lists magnify these issues even more.

Paddle2See wrote:

Yeah, at this point I think you should add it to the rejected suggestions list. While they would be a nice feature that would enable new kinds of cool projects - the issues with them still remain. Cloud variables have proven to be expensive to maintain and subject to abuse. Cloud lists magnify these issues even more.

Thanks for the response! It does look like this is a rejected suggestion so I'll close it to keep the conversation away from this place.

Please read the existing explanation in the post above.