This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Two claims get bundled together under new subcategory 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.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about new subcategory than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Building on post #91 rather than restating it.
On new subcategory, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Post #91 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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 mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
The useful distinction on new subcategory is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
RSS: if you prefer to receive announcements by feed rather than visiting the site, RSS is available for this subcategory.
Saving this. It is the version I will quote when the question comes round again.
Picking up post #97: that is the part I would want checked first.
New subcategory would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
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.
I am aware this is the third time this month I have made this point.
I read the earlier replies on new subcategory twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.
Post #102 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
Post #104 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
A note on how new subcategory gets discussed rather than on new subcategory itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Worth stating the null on new subcategory before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
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.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
Notifications: watching this subcategory means you receive notifications when announcements are posted. Useful if you want to stay current.
I would call that likely rather than established.
This follows post #111 rather than contradicting it.
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.
If anyone can point at the primary source I would be grateful.
Worth separating two things that post #112 runs together.
Reading this new subcategory thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
Picking up post #114: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Housekeeping announcement. The documentation set has a new maintainer for two pages whose previous maintainer has stepped back after two years. Both pages have been reviewed at handover rather than assumed current.
Confirming post #118 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
New subcategory is a good example of a question where the honest answer is boring and the interesting answers are unsupported. I would go with boring.
Adding a small correction to the new subcategory summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.