This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
One more thing on topic list that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
On post #30 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Summarising the topic list thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Post #31 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Adding the measurement that post #33 says would settle it.
The practical version of topic list is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
On topic list the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
The arithmetic in post #36 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
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.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Reframing topic list slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
Something worth flagging about topic list: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
Suggestion rather than complaint: the vendor pages carry a review date, and topics do not. A topic that has been read by a maintainer recently is a different thing from one nobody has looked at since 2024.
That distinction has done more work for me than anything else in this category.
Where I part company with post #43, and it is a narrow parting.
The counter-argument is that a review date on a topic implies a maintenance promise nobody has made. A document carries one because somebody signed up to it.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Offering a way to settle topic list rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.
Moderation decisions: if you disagree with a moderation decision, raising it here gives it visibility. Staff will reconsider if you make a substantive case.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Worth separating two things that post #47 runs together.
The arithmetic on topic list is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
This follows post #47 rather than contradicting it.
Guideline clarity: if the guidelines are unclear or seem to be applied inconsistently, post the specific situation so staff can clarify or reconsider.
That has been true for the cases I have seen and I have not seen many.
Topic list: 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.
Careful with the language on topic list. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Post #50 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Accessibility: screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, font size — if something is not accessible to you, report it. Accessibility matters.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Topic list looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
What I want from this topic list 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.
Confirming post #54 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Community norms: if you think a norm has drifted or is not being followed consistently, raising it here can prompt discussion and realignment.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
I had written a reply contradicting post #56 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Posting my topic list numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
Building on post #58 rather than restating it.
The version of topic list that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.
Post #56 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
That would also be the fastest way for a new member to understand what R6 actually catches, which is narrower than people assume from the text.
That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.