"The more choices you give people, the harder it is for them to choose, and the unhappier they'll feel. See, for example, Barry Schwartz's book, The Paradox of Choice. Let me quote from the Publishers Weekly review: “Schwartz, drawing extensively on his own work in the social sciences, shows that a bewildering array of choices floods our exhausted brains, ultimately restricting instead of freeing us. We normally assume in America that more options ('easy fit' or 'relaxed fit'?) will make us happier, but Schwartz shows the opposite is true, arguing that having all these choices actually goes so far as to erode our psychological well-being.”

The fact that you have to choose between nine different ways of turning off your computer every time just on the start menu, not to mention the choice of hitting the physical on/off button or closing the laptop lid, produces just a little bit of unhappiness every time." (Joel On Software)

More = Better is a common trap that development team find themselves in. Yeah, we got more features dude.

More features = Higher Learning Curve = Higher Demand of Decision Making.

There is always a limitation in your software, regardless of how many variations of a feature you have implemented. So what you need to do is to make it simpler to use by providing smaller set of choices that people need to make.

There's a Zen anecdote about this type of pattern. Two soldiers were running away from the battlefield. One ran for 10K and the other ran for 20K away. Who is more cowards? They are both cowards, it doesn't matter that the latter ran further than the former.

The lesson of the story is this, once the essence of the action already decided, the optimization and variance don't really matter.