This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Taking post #30 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
One of those cases where knowing the mechanism does not help the decision.
Post #29 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Worth separating export as a question about the compound from export 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.
I would treat that as a working assumption and revisit it.
Post #32 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
Adding the boring version of export, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
The confident answers on export and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
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.
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.
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.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
Confirming post #41 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
Post #41 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
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.
Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.
A note on how export gets discussed rather than on export itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.
Picking up post #45: that is the part I would want checked first.
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 kept the units in throughout, for the obvious reason.
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.
Seconded, and it is also the honest complement to an archive that keeps your posts after you close your account.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
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.
This is the sort of thing the wiki should carry and currently does not.
Where I have landed on export, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
Answering the question post #50 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
Use case: explain why you think the feature would help. "I would use this to..." makes the request concrete.
Post #54 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
That would be genuinely useful in the vendor pages too, where a discussion link often means posts eleven through fifteen and points at eleven.
I had written a reply contradicting post #58 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Reading back through the export threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.