A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Request a new maintained page: if a question recurs, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example, it is a candidate for promotion to a maintained documentation page. Post your nomination in this subcategory with a link to the topic.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
On post #61 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
Picking up post #61: that is the part I would want checked first.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Post #65 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
I have seen it go both ways, which is why I hedge.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
Requests for a page summarising a supplier are declined, because that is what the vendor documentation set is for and it has its own standards.
Post #70 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Requests for a document covering something the evidence does not support get declined, and the decline usually points at what could be written instead.
Link the topics that prompted the request. The discussion is the evidence that the question recurs.
I would put a moderate confidence on that and no more.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
Where I would look next, rather than where I would stop.
Post #78 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.
Written quickly, so the reasoning may be tighter than the wording.
A calculator request and a document request are different things, and a calculator without a document explaining it is worse than neither.
Post #79 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
Taking post #83 at face value and following it one step further.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
I have written this out at length because the short version keeps being misread.
Documents that are mostly a worked example age better than documents that are mostly a summary, because the arithmetic does not change.
Second this, and I would have said it less carefully.
The arithmetic in post #88 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The most useful requests here identify a specific confusion that keeps recurring rather than a subject that seems important.
I would rather post the uncertainty than round it away.