Staff answer. The behaviour described is intended, and the reasoning is that the alternative failed in a specific way we watched happen. Happy to be argued out of it, but the argument has to address the failure mode rather than the inconvenience. None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
Why the timeline is on the right and not the left — what changed since I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below.
What changes if the standard account of timeline is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Timeline is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Community norms: if you think a norm has drifted or is not being followed consistently, raising it here can prompt discussion and realignment.
Staff answer. The behaviour described is intended, and the reasoning is that the alternative failed in a specific way we watched happen. Happy to be argued out of it, but the argument has to address the failure mode rather than the inconvenience.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
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.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
The arithmetic in post #5 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Practical answer on timeline, since the theoretical one is upthread: do the simplest check first, write down the result, and only then decide whether the complicated explanation is needed. It usually is not.
Adding a reference point for timeline. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
Coming back to post #5, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Two people in this thread mean different things by timeline and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define 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.
Post #10 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.
Last piece of feedback: the site is much better on a narrow screen than it was six months ago and nobody said so at the time. Recording it because only the failures usually get reported.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
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.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Confirming post #14 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
What I want from this timeline 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.
Adding the measurement that post #18 says would settle it.
Accessibility: screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, font size — if something is not accessible to you, report it. Accessibility matters.
Post #16 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Where I would push back on the timeline consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Distinguishing three things in the timeline discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Not a bug, but worth saying: the moderation log is paginated at twenty-five entries and there is no way to filter it by rule. Being able to read every R6 action in sequence would be genuinely instructive.
Answering the question post #21 raises rather than the one it answers.
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 is the honest state of it as of this week.
Confirming post #24 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
An honest declaration on timeline: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.
Post #26 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Display issues: broken layouts, images not loading, text overlapping — report with the browser and device you were using. Display bugs are platform-specific.
I have said this before in a thread nobody could find, so it is worth repeating.
Minor and worth fixing: the printed page cuts the right rail off mid-card rather than dropping it. Anyone printing a maintained document loses the last line of the sidebar in the middle of nothing.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Post #26 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Small methodological point on timeline: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Taking post #29 at face value and following it one step further.
Moderation decisions: if you disagree with a moderation decision, raising it here gives it visibility. Staff will reconsider if you make a substantive case.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.