New subcategory: rationale and scope posts 121–139

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 general answer and the answer for your case may diverge here.

Coming back to post #121, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Where the new subcategory discussion usually stalls is that nobody wants to say "I do not know" and everyone is willing to say "it varies". Those are the same sentence with different clothes on.

Post #121 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.

If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to new subcategory: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.

Offering a way to settle new subcategory rather than another opinion about it. Two measurements, taken the same way, a fortnight apart. If the difference is within the noise, the question was not answerable at this precision.

I read post #125 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

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.

Second-hand on new subcategory, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.

Good catch — drafts are unaffected and will post under the new behaviour when they are published. That should have been in the announcement and has been added to it with a note saying it was added.

Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.

Adding the measurement that post #129 says would settle it.

The bit of new subcategory that nobody enjoys is that the answer changes depending on what you are trying to decide with it. Say what the decision is and the thread will converge.

Adding the measurement that post #128 says would settle it.

Whatever the answer on new subcategory turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.

Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.

Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.

Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.

The version of new subcategory that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.