New subcategory: rationale and scope posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.
Staff-only posts: some announcements are visible only to staff (concerning internal operations). Members see public announcements.
post #33 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Scheduled maintenance: if the site is going offline for maintenance, advance notice will be posted here with the duration and scope.
When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.
Questions welcomed: if an announcement is unclear, asking for clarification is welcome. Staff will explain their reasoning.
Worth separating two things that post #33 runs together.
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.
post #37 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Implementation timeline: announcements include when a change takes effect. Marking the date helps you know whether the change is already in effect.
When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.
This follows post #38 rather than contradicting it.
Implementation timeline: announcements include when a change takes effect. Marking the date helps you know whether the change is already in effect.
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.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Archives: older announcements are archived by date. Checking archives is useful if you want to know what changed when.
Coming back to post #44, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
Staff-only posts: some announcements are visible only to staff (concerning internal operations). Members see public announcements.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Scheduled maintenance: if the site is going offline for maintenance, advance notice will be posted here with the duration and scope.
I read post #51 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
Archives: older announcements are archived by date. Checking archives is useful if you want to know what changed when.
On post #51 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Two things before anyone answers the substance.
First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.
Questions welcomed: if an announcement is unclear, asking for clarification is welcome. Staff will explain their reasoning.
When announcements are made: major policy changes, technical changes affecting site function, planned downtime, and changes to guidelines all get announced here.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.