New subcategory: rationale and scope

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.

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.

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.

post #60 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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.

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.

Coming back to post #73, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Notifications: watching this subcategory means you receive notifications when announcements are posted. Useful if you want to stay current.

post #82 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Archives: older announcements are archived by date. Checking archives is useful if you want to know what changed when.

On post #112 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Questions welcomed: if an announcement is unclear, asking for clarification is welcome. Staff will explain their reasoning.

This follows post #132 rather than contradicting it.

Staff-only posts: some announcements are visible only to staff (concerning internal operations). Members see public announcements.