Follow-up: Search filters: what is missing

On the subject in the title: Search filters: what is missing Working notes rather than a conclusion.

A follow-up question about Search filters that I did not know to ask the first time.

The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one 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.

Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.

Practical answer on Search filters, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.

The most useful reply I ever got about Search filters was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.

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.

That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.

That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.

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.

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.