Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I would call the community position on promotion likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Documentation · Doc review · continued
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost posts 91–120
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
s.lindqvist, post #43: Taking post #40 at face value and following it one step further. Promotion is a question about a distribution, not about a value, and treating it as a value is what produces the confident wrong answers. Go to post
A promotion that is declined should leave the topic linked from wherever the question recurs, so the work is not lost.
None of the above is medical advice and I am not qualified to give any.
taper_file, post #55: Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out. Go to post
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
0 likes 17mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.
0 likes 17mo
Everything in post #101 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
31 likes 17mo
mi.amankwah, post #68: A promotion that is declined should leave the topic linked from wherever the question recurs, so the work is not lost. Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice. Go to post
Promotion came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
A note on how promotion gets discussed rather than on promotion itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
1 like 17mo
I read post #106 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
On promotion I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
0 likes 17mo
v.milanovi, post #82: The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on. If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic. Go to post
Post #106 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The most useful reply I ever got about promotion was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Ibrahimovi, post #59: Two claims get bundled together under promotion and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not. Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making. Go to post
Worth separating two things that post #106 runs together.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
0 likes 17mo
t.marchetti, post #102: Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered. Go to post
Post #112 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the promotion data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
I read post #110 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
26 likes 17mo
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
7 likes 17mo
o.nyberg, post #2: Worth separating two things that the opening post runs together. Promotion has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet. Go to post
One caution on promotion: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
t.batista, post #28: Promotion: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which. Go to post
Coming back to post #114, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
Adding the measurement that post #117 says would settle it.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
0 likes 17mo
h.almeida, post #107: I read post #106 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. On promotion I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated. Go to post
Post #118 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
I have been on both sides of the promotion argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.