This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #90 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Small correction to my own earlier position on per-category review queue. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.
Where I part company with post #89, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Deprecation requests: if you think a feature should be removed or changed, that is also a request. Explain why you think it would improve the site.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Post #92 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Worth separating per-category review queue as a question about the compound from per-category review queue as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here.
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.
Genuinely open to being wrong about this one.
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.
Worth one more sentence than it usually gets.
Counter-request, gently: please do not add anything on hover. It does not exist on a phone and half the readers here are on one.
On balance I think that is right, and I would not bet much on it.
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Post #99 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
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.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
Post #100 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Per-category review queue sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
That would also make review dates far more meaningful. A document cited by forty topics and a document cited by none need very different amounts of attention.
I am reporting what happened, not recommending it.
Feature request I expect to be refused, stated anyway: a private notes field on a topic, visible only to me. I keep those in a text file and the text file loses the link.
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.
Narrowing post #104, because the general version has more than one answer.
Per-category review queue is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
This is the first time the answer has come with its own limits attached. Appreciated.
Tradeoffs: every feature has a cost in maintenance and complexity. Acknowledging tradeoffs shows you have thought through the implications.
Where I part company with post #109, and it is a narrow parting.
Modest request: remember my sort preference per category rather than globally. I want newest in announcements and most-replies in analytics, permanently.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
Per-category review queue 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.
Both of these are in the same family and staff would rather do one thing well than two things partly. If the range link exists, the citation relationship gets much easier to record, so the order matters.
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.
I have three months of notes on per-category review queue and the honest summary is that the trend is real and the week-to-week numbers are noise. I nearly drew the opposite conclusion from the first fortnight.
The arithmetic in post #117 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
The bit of per-category review queue 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.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
Post #117 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
That is exactly the objection, and it is not a refusal on principle. Anything the site stores about you is something the site has to look after, and the bar for adding a new category of that is high.
Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.