Revisiting: Moderation log format change Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
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.
The opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Two things can be true about Moderation log format change at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.
I keep a log for Moderation log format change specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.
Noted, and thank you for writing it out rather than summarising it.
This follows post #5 rather than contradicting it.
I disagree with the framing of Moderation log format change 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.
That matches what I have seen, for whatever a single anecdote is worth.
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.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
This follows post #10 rather than contradicting it.
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.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
I read post #13 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of Moderation log format change and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.
Coming back to post #16, 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.
That is a description of practice, not a recommendation of it.
Post #18 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
I have left out the parts I could not verify.
Worth separating two things that post #16 runs together.
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.
Reading it again, the caveat matters more than the finding.
Reading the changed pages: the diff is smaller than the announcement implies, which is reassuring rather than disappointing. A large change to a documentation page usually means the previous version was wrong.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Implementation timeline: announcements include when a change takes effect. Marking the date helps you know whether the change is already in effect.
Coming back to post #21, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Where I have landed on Moderation log format change, 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.
Picking up post #21: that is the part I would want checked first.
The confident answers on Moderation log format change and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
Post #24 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.
I read post #26 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
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.
The short answer was in the first line; everything after is the working.
Before the thread moves on from Moderation log format change — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
On post #26 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Answering the Moderation log format change question as asked, then the question I think is meant. As asked: yes, with the qualification below. As meant: it depends on how the first measurement was taken.
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.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.