I have a suggestion that there needs to be a clear solution for where to post about data errors, e.g. in history/character files: wrong dates, wrong parents or children, wrong rulers etc. Those should be kept separate from the entire universe of feature and interface suggestions, which concern different aspects of the game, often complex mechanics, often controversial ideas, of which there are thousands. I can sort of see why people don't regard data errors as bugs (though I profoundly disagree), but the idea that reporting a wrong date or wrong parentage, dynastic, religious or de iure affiliation or something else like that is a suggestion to improve the historical accuracy of the game is ridiculous.
It's like saying that removing a typo improves the correctness of spelling in the game, or even — for that matter — that removing a bug improves the game's source code.
Once upon a time, maybe two years ago, I reported the wrong birth date on either Louis IX or his brother Robert of Artois, causing Robert to be the elder brother in the game. That was in the bug forum, there was no fanboyish 'but this is an alternative history game LOL!!!1' or 'but that's not a code error, go away and die' kind of talk whatsoever (maybe the atmosphere in 2012/2013 was healthier). Nobody disputed, challenged, attacked, downplayed or ridiculed the report or tried to reclassify it or anything. On the contrary, the issue was picked up and fixed very quickly, like the first patch that came out. Calling it a 'suggestion' after the modern fashion in these forums would have been farcical.
Even analyses and suggestions concerning things that are broken in the poster' own opinion (e.g. decadence, levies, Muslim opinion/stability) should be kept separate from self-professed creative and subjective suggestions of improvements and especially from all those quite often fanciful and fantastic wishlists of what people love to see in a DLC (e.g. cadet branches, naval combat, family castle, enatic succession etc.) and not buried under the heaps of them, coming in variant quality.
Just maybe create and enforce a restriction that a poster who wishes to report a data error should provide sources and links in order to make his case and maybe keep it as brief as possible and/or separate the meat of the issue (data, in bullet points, with links) from the narration of the post. Bonus (i.e. fast track and more serious treatment) if he can identify the data file and provide amended scripting code in his post, so that it can be just pasted in by a fixing dev/QA'er or modder or anybody who wishes to fix that problem in his own game. Without the file and the code provided by the opening poster, perhaps a couple of community volunteers might want to go through such threads, pick the more serious, important and well documented suggestions and do the scripting after locating the respective file — and after that, it would be fast-tracked for the next patch. The whole rest would have to wait longer, especially if the claims of inaccuracy had to be investigated by a researcher. This is something you can achieve with 'suggestions on how to improve the historical accuracy of the game', but obviously you can't do it with naval combat, personal castles, seduction mechanics and other subjective matters.
Bottom line: wrong data is not subjective* or creative, and quality is less of an issue. Rather, the poster is either right or wrong, and usually right. This is totally different from the bulk of feature and mechanic suggestions that usually involve fleshing something out in a way designed by the opening poster, which often has little to do with how design and coding really works. I would put misspellings and grammatical errors in the same category.
(* In some cases of disputed sources subjectivity may be involved, but it's still not the same right-brained stuff as e.g. naval combat and throne rooms.)
