Meta · Announcements · continued

Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on posts 61–82

Meta › Announcements trust levels moderation site feedback guidelines Pinned

This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.

a.ilungaTL222 Jan 2026#61

g.pemberton_uk, post #54: Picking up post #51: that is the part I would want checked first. I have been on both sides of the Guidelines revision argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is. Go to post

Taking post #60 at face value and following it one step further.

Posting my Guidelines revision numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.

0 likes in reply to #54 6mo

logbook_erinTL3Regular24 Jan 2026#62

When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.

That is all I can say without guessing.

1 like 6mo

s.girardTL227 Jan 2026#63

The thing about Guidelines revision that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.

7 likes 6mo

c.okaforTL3Regular29 Jan 2026#64

I read post #62 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Guidelines revision: 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.

17 likes 6mo

f.danquahTL21 Feb 2026 · edited#65

h.frisk, post #51: What I want from this Guidelines revision 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. Go to post

Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.

0 likes in reply to #51 6mo

crossref_checkTL3Wiki editor3 Feb 2026#66

np_gilmore, post #1: On the subject in the title: Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Guidelines revision. Everyone quotes the same figure and I cannot find anyone who says how it was arrived at. That is not an accusation; it usually means the… Go to post

Post #62 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.

3 likes in reply to #1 6mo

p.krastevTL26 Feb 2026#67

Careful with the language on Guidelines revision. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.

11 likes 6mo

VPoulsenTL3Regular8 Feb 2026#68

Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the Guidelines revision data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.

24 likes 6mo

v.bergstromTL211 Feb 2026#69

The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.

The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.

25 likes 5mo

r.jhannsdttirTL3Regular13 Feb 2026#70

On post #66 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Guidelines revision is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.

0 likes 5mo

owen.bradyTL4 Moderator16 Feb 2026#71

Staff post. Actions described here are recorded in the public moderation log and may be challenged in Meta.

Announcement about the vendor documentation set. Two pages have had their review dates brought forward because the underlying records changed. The pages themselves say what changed and when, as they always have.

1 like 5mo

lyophil_marginTL3Regular18 Feb 2026#72

b.nwosu, post #39: Answering the question post #37 raises rather than the one it answers. Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable. It took me longer than it should have to see that. Go to post

Post #69 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

My position on Guidelines revision is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.

0 likes in reply to #39 5mo

a.amankwahTL220 Feb 2026#73

If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to Guidelines revision: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.

22 likes 5mo

r.marsdenTL3Regular23 Feb 2026#74

Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.

Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.

10 likes 5mo

d.nwosuTL225 Feb 2026#75

Archives: older announcements are archived by date. Checking archives is useful if you want to know what changed when.

Someone should write this up properly, and it should probably not be me.

3 likes 5mo

r.torrenceTL2Member28 Feb 2026#76

d.tamm, post #33: Post #29 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction. I would call the community position on Guidelines revision likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge. Go to post

Reading the changed pages: the diff is smaller than the announcement implies, which is reassuring rather than disappointing. A large change to a documentation page usually means the previous version was wrong.

I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.

0 likes in reply to #33 5mo

r.oyelaranTL22 Mar 2026#77

Answering the question post #73 raises rather than the one it answers.

Worth stating the null on Guidelines revision before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.

30 likes 5mo

k.farrugiaTL3Regular5 Mar 2026#78

A note on how Guidelines revision gets discussed rather than on Guidelines revision itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.

15 likes 5mo

e.krastevTL27 Mar 2026 · edited#79

Post #77 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Worth saying publicly: stepping back cleanly and handing over is a service. Documents with an absent maintainer go wrong quietly, which is the worst way for them to go wrong.

Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.

0 likes 5mo

s.poulsenTL3Regular9 Mar 2026#80

a.eriksen, post #27: Adding what did not work for me on Guidelines revision, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information. Go to post

One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.

23 likes in reply to #27 5mo

coldchain_liuTL3Regular12 Mar 2026#81

j.baptista, post #2: The practical version of Guidelines revision is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached. Go to post

The arithmetic in post #78 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

Nobody has said the unglamorous part of Guidelines revision yet, so: most of the variation is explained by things that are boring to write about and easy to check.

0 likes in reply to #2 5mo

p.ostergaardTL214 Mar 2026#82

Answering the question post #80 raises rather than the one it answers.

My experience of Guidelines revision contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.

2 likes 4mo

This topic was referenced in

Guidelines revision: what changed and why — does this still hold?Meta › Announcements · 2 replies

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
New subcategory: rationale and scope Meta › Announcements trust levels site feedback moderation guidelines On the subject in the title: New subcategory: rationale and scope Working notes rather than a conclusion. Proposing that new subcategory deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting…	+123	138	13k	9mo
Revisiting: Moderation log format change Meta › Announcements guidelines trust levels moderation site feedback Revisiting: Moderation log format change Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Moderation log format change keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because…	+65	71	9.1k	19mo
About the Announcements category Meta › Announcements guidelines trust levels moderation Pinned Wiki Staff announcements, policy changes, and scheduled maintenance. Read-only except for questions. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…	+3	7	8.7k	4h
[2026 update] New subcategory: rationale and scope Meta › Announcements guidelines site feedback moderation trust levels Solved New subcategory: rationale and scope — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Proposing that New subcategory deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting…	+136	163	1.8k	18mo
A staff appointment, and what the role involves Meta › Announcements trust levels site feedback moderation Closed On the subject in the title: A staff appointment, and what the role involves Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about staff appointment on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked badly,…		2	1.8k	4mo

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Pricing far outside the range, in either direction Sourcing › Red flags disputed mislabelling underdosing moderation Solved Posting this under the heading it deserves: Pricing far outside the range, in either direction Everything below is what sits behind that. A question about pricing far outside the range that I think has a…	+3	7	27k	7mo
Coming back to: When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction Sourcing › Red flags mislabelling moderation documentation quality When a red flag was a misunderstanding, and the retraction I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Red flag — I have the observation and I do not trust my…	+6	10	257	21h
What to include when your question involves a laboratory result — a second dataset Start Here › How to Ask onboarding guidelines worked example site feedback Solved What to include when your question involves a laboratory result — a second dataset I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Question in the title. Context…		2	7k	23d
Follow-up: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims Sourcing › Red flags documentation quality disputed mislabelling moderation A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A follow-up question about supplier that I did not know to ask the first…	+74	82	2.8k	6mo
A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history Meta › Wiki maintenance wiki post maintainership moderation citation check A revision dispute resolved on the topic rather than in the history Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that revision dispute resolved deserves a…	+10	15	40k	16h

Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on posts 61–82

This topic was referenced in

Suggested topics

Related topics — sharing the tags trust levels, moderation, site feedback