Follow-up: Search filters: what is missing posts 121–142

Adding a small correction to the Search filters summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.

Logged, and thank you for the precise description. That is a wording problem rather than a logic problem — an empty state that says "no topics match both filters" is a five-minute change and a real improvement.

Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.

Answering the question post #121 raises rather than the one it answers.

Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.

One caution on Search filters: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.

Search filters: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.

Confirming post #125 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Accessibility: screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, font size — if something is not accessible to you, report it. Accessibility matters.

That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.

Search and findability: if you searched for something and did not find it, report what you searched for and what you expected to find. That helps improve indexing and tagging.

What I want from this Search filters thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.

Coming back to post #125, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

That would also be the fastest way for a new member to understand what R6 actually catches, which is narrower than people assume from the text.

The claim is narrower than it sounds, and deliberately so.

The number people quote for Search filters is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.

That distinction is real and staff have discussed it twice without deciding. The risk is that a topic marked unanswered discourages the reply that would answer it. If anyone has seen it work elsewhere, say so — that is the missing evidence.

I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.

Narrowing post #131, because the general version has more than one answer.

I keep a log for Search filters specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

Everything in post #130 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

Not a bug, but worth saying: the moderation log is paginated at twenty-five entries and there is no way to filter it by rule. Being able to read every R6 action in sequence would be genuinely instructive.