Small correction to my own earlier position on topic list. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
The topic list is dense — is that deliberate? — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked.
A narrow question about topic list, deliberately narrow, because the broad version has been asked here four times and produced four long threads and no answer.
One question, stated units, stated method, and what I have already ruled out.
The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Where I have landed on topic list, 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.
Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.
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.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
The question underneath topic list is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Narrowing post #4, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Small correction to my own earlier position on topic list. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
I disagree with the framing of topic list above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Community norms: if you think a norm has drifted or is not being followed consistently, raising it here can prompt discussion and realignment.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Agreed on topic list, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Adding thanks rather than a view. I do not have a view worth the space.
Two people in this thread mean different things by topic list and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
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.
Performance: if pages are slow to load, timeouts occur, or the site is unresponsive, that is worth reporting with details (when, which pages, how slow).
Accessibility: screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, font size — if something is not accessible to you, report it. Accessibility matters.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
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.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
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.
Taking post #22 at face value and following it one step further.
Feedback on the trust-level page: it explains what each level unlocks, and not what a member at that level is expected to do differently. The second is what people actually want to know.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Having read the whole topic list thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Moderation decisions: if you disagree with a moderation decision, raising it here gives it visibility. Staff will reconsider if you make a substantive case.
Topic list is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Building on post #26 rather than restating it.
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.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
Following, with nothing to contribute beyond having asked the same thing elsewhere.
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.