This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Post #30 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
It is the sort of thing that seems obvious in retrospect and was not at the time.
Taking post #31 at face value and following it one step further.
Request from the analytics side: allow a table in a post to be marked as data rather than layout, so it can be copied without the formatting. Half the tables here are worth pasting into a spreadsheet.
What I want from this diff view for wiki revisions thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Adding a small correction to the diff view for wiki revisions summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
Post #31 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Asking for something deliberately narrow: a way to link to a range of posts rather than a single one. Half the good exchanges here are four posts long and there is no way to point at all four.
Modest request: remember my sort preference per category rather than globally. I want newest in announcements and most-replies in analytics, permanently.
Request with the use case rather than the feature. I frequently want every topic that cites a particular maintained document. At the moment I can find the document from the topic and not the reverse.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
Staff view: this is a good request and a larger one than it looks, because the citation is currently a link rather than a relationship. Recording it properly is the work, displaying it is trivial.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.
Practical experience of diff view for wiki revisions, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
Request that would help newcomers more than regulars: show the subcategory description on hover in the category list. The names are terse and the descriptions are good.
The interesting part of this is the exception, and I do not understand the exception.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on diff view for wiki revisions. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Diff view for wiki revisions was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.
Building on post #45 rather than restating it.
Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.
The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.
Then the honest version is a comparison of the record shapes rather than the scores. How many results, over how long, from which services. That I would use.
Reporting the observation and leaving the explanation open deliberately.
That reframing is better than the original request and staff would consider it. Which is a good illustration of why these belong in public: the first version would have been declined and the third is worth building.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
The most useful reply I ever got about diff view for wiki revisions was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
I had written a reply contradicting post #50 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Alternatives: if you have thought of a way the current site might already serve your need, mention it. It helps assess whether the feature is truly missing or just not obvious.
Summarising the diff view for wiki revisions thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
The arithmetic in post #53 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
One more thing on diff view for wiki revisions that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Small request: let me filter Latest by whether I have read the topic. Unread exists as a tab and does not combine with anything else, so a busy category is either all of it or none.
Request: an export of my own posts. Not for any dramatic reason — I want to search my own history offline, and site search is optimised for finding other people's material.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Worth separating two things that post #57 runs together.
Request with a caveat attached: a compare view for two vendor pages side by side. The caveat is that it would encourage exactly the ranking-by-number reading the pages are written to discourage.