Posting this under the heading it deserves: Moderation log format change Everything below is what sits behind that.
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.
Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.
Moderation log format change is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers.
I read post #3 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I would call the community position on moderation log format change likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Feedback to announcements: if you have feedback on an announced change (not a question, but your position) post it in the Meta category rather than here.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
Coming back to post #6, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
The version of moderation log format change that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on moderation log format change, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Counterpoint on moderation log format change, offered without confidence: the same observation is consistent with a much duller explanation, and nobody has ruled the dull one out.
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.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Coming back to post #13, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
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.
That holds for the case as described. Change the assumptions and it may not.
Picking up post #13: that is the part I would want checked first.
One more thing on moderation log format change 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.
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.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
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.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Following up on the announcement above with the part people usually ask about first: no existing topic is affected, no existing post is edited, and nothing is removed. The change applies from the date forward only.
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.
Announcement, with the reasoning rather than just the change. The behaviour described takes effect at the start of next month, it affects posting rather than reading, and nothing already posted changes. Objections belong in Meta and will be answered there.
Worth separating two things that post #21 runs together.
Practical question on the rollout: will it be visible that a topic was created before or after the change? Six months from now nobody will remember the date.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Thank you for taking the time. That was more work than a reply usually is.
Coming back to post #24, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Implementation timeline: announcements include when a change takes effect. Marking the date helps you know whether the change is already in effect.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
Post #26 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
I read post #28 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.