Does anyone have label alternatives that are more consistent?

[Josh Salvi]

I get a lot of requests for custom fields that boil down to a boolean of "is this case true". These are usually only used in one project out of the many that we have.
To me, this would seem like a case for labels but I run into resistance. Labels are considered too inconsistent, too easy for users to duplicate or mistype, and generally not reliable enough.

I want to make sure that I'm offering good solutions, but also trying to keep overall performance in mind. We have an abundance of custom fields and I've been trying to get a better handle on what's created.

Thanks

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

You're right that labels are the wrong thing for this, they really are intended for arbitrarily grouping things together.

But I'm a bit stuck on why people are asking for booleans like that.  People don't usually want flags like that, they're really looking for something that answers a specific question, and there's a question hiding behind that boolean.

Could you give us some (anonymised) questions they're asking?  And explain why they can't use a search for themselves?

[Josh Salvi]

In this latest instance, I have a team looking for a "CAPEX" and an "R&D" field to categorize work for reporting purposes. This is separate from a field that designates the area of the business.

In the past for service projects I've had requests for a yes/no field for whether not the work required additional paperwork.

I've tried in the past to answer questions based on implied information, such as, if the work is being done by this team, and the request is coming from a certain region, then it's implied that it will require additional paperwork. This works for general filtering, but doesn't always work for reporting.

[Nic Brough -Adaptavist-]

Ok, I'd suggest adding a select list (or multi select) with options for CAPEX and R&D