Follow-up: Search filters: what is missing posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
Where the Search filters reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
On post #62 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Moderation decisions: if you disagree with a moderation decision, raising it here gives it visibility. Staff will reconsider if you make a substantive case.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
Post #64 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Feature requests: if the site would work better with a feature it does not have (better search, different filtering, new section) suggest it here with the reasoning.
It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.
I read post #62 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I changed my mind about Search filters after someone here asked me for the source and I could not produce one. That is worth saying out loud because it is the ordinary way it happens.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Search filters than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Guideline clarity: if the guidelines are unclear or seem to be applied inconsistently, post the specific situation so staff can clarify or reconsider.
Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.
Distinguishing three things in the Search filters discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Narrowing post #69, because the general version has more than one answer.
Search filters was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
On Search filters, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.
Staff answer. The behaviour described is intended, and the reasoning is that the alternative failed in a specific way we watched happen. Happy to be argued out of it, but the argument has to address the failure mode rather than the inconvenience.
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.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Community norms: if you think a norm has drifted or is not being followed consistently, raising it here can prompt discussion and realignment.
Building on post #79 rather than restating it.
Counterpoint on Search filters, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
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.
That is where I would start, not where I would stop.
Reporting rather than recommending, on Search filters. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Post #82 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Checked the Search filters claim against the primary source this morning. It survives, with a narrower scope than the version quoted here. Posting the narrower scope.
Seconding that. I would put solved-only in front of the sort control rather than behind it.
A weak preference rather than a position.
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.
The honest answer on Search filters is that it depends, and the useful part is the list of what it depends on. Four items, in rough order of how much they matter.
Most people get the first two right and then argue about the fourth.
Worth separating two things that post #88 runs together.
Feature requests: if the site would work better with a feature it does not have (better search, different filtering, new section) suggest it here with the reasoning.