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 the answer is conditional and the conditions never travel with it.
Attempting to write the conditional version down properly. Corrections welcome and expected — I would like this to end up as a maintained page rather than a fifth thread.
Two things can be true about Moderation log format change at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
I keep a log for Moderation log format change specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
I had written a reply contradicting the opening post and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The moderation log will carry the announcement entry, so the date is recoverable. It will not be visible on the topic itself, which is probably the right level of clutter.
Practical note on Moderation log format change: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.
Nothing to add, except that this is the answer I would give if asked.
Worth separating Moderation log format change as a question about the compound from Moderation log format change as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
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.
Taking post #10 at face value and following it one step further.
The rare case here is the one that costs somebody a week, though, and the common case costs everyone ten seconds. I think the trade is clearly correct.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
Post #12 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Noting appreciation rather than asking anything. Several years of unpaid work on something with no leaderboard and a public log of your mistakes is a peculiar thing to volunteer for.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of Moderation log format change and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
Worth separating two things that post #16 runs together.
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.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Adding the measurement that post #18 says would settle it.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
Post #16 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Supportive, with one reservation worth stating in public: the change makes a common case slightly slower in exchange for making a rare case much better. That is usually right and it is not automatically right.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
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.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Implementation timeline: announcements include when a change takes effect. Marking the date helps you know whether the change is already in effect.
I had written a reply contradicting post #21 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Where I have landed on Moderation log format change, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
Confirming post #21 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The confident answers on Moderation log format change and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
This follows post #25 rather than contradicting it.
Moderation log format change is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Coming back to post #25, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Reading this as a member rather than staff: the change is sensible and the explanation is better than the change. Publishing the failure mode that prompted it is what makes it possible to argue with.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
Before the thread moves on from Moderation log format change — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
Post #25 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Answering the Moderation log format change question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.