Revisiting: Mobile reading experience on long topics

Posting this under the heading it deserves: Revisiting: Mobile reading experience on long topics Everything below is what sits behind that.

Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process question with numbers attached is a different conversation.

25 instances over 7 months, 3 of which went the other way. I have listed each with a date and a link so the count can be checked rather than taken.

My question is whether the pattern is the one the rule was written for.

Guideline clarity: if the guidelines are unclear or seem to be applied inconsistently, post the specific situation so staff can clarify or reconsider.

The opening post is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

That is a fair objection and it changes my view. Better to leave topics honestly unmaintained than to imply an assurance.

Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.

Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.

On post #2 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Agreed, and it matters most on old topics where the person who asked has not been back in two years.

The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.

Confirming post #4 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

Small thing that would help: solved topics show the solution in the header, but the header does not say who marked it. Author-marked and staff-marked are different signals and the page currently flattens them.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

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.

Flagging that the sources on this are thinner than the confidence in the thread suggests.

Building on post #8 rather than restating it.

Both noted and both reasonable. Staff will not promise a date — everybody here is a volunteer and the queue is long — but this is the sort of change that gets made because somebody described it precisely rather than generally.

The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.

Reporting a real defect: on a long topic the jump-to-post link scrolls to the right post but the highlight does not fire on the first load. Second load is fine. Reproducible on my end, twice.

I would rather say I do not know than round it up to an answer.

On post #9 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Request with a reason: an "unanswered" filter distinct from "unsolved". Plenty of topics have twelve replies and no answer, and plenty of good answers never get marked.

That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.

Picking up post #9: that is the part I would want checked first.

Feature request framed as feedback: the category list is long enough that a first-time reader cannot tell which four categories carry most of the traffic. A count next to each would fix that without changing anything structural.

A weak preference rather than a position.

Reproduced. Thank you for the second-load detail — that narrows it considerably and it would have taken a long time to find without it. It will be recorded in the log when it is fixed rather than quietly.

Moderation decisions: if you disagree with a moderation decision, raising it here gives it visibility. Staff will reconsider if you make a substantive case.

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