Request: export my own posts — one year on posts 61–71

Where I part company with post #59, and it is a narrow parting.

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.

Post #59 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Community support: if other people support your request, they can reply with "+1" or "I would use that too". Widely-requested features are prioritised.

Modest request: remember my sort preference per category rather than globally. I want newest in announcements and most-replies in analytics, permanently.

The evidence for this is thinner than the way I have phrased it suggests.

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.

On reflection I would soften that slightly.

I had written a reply contradicting post #63 and deleted it. Here is what survived.

Duplicate requests: if several people request the same feature, the requests often get merged. Check whether your feature has already been suggested before posting.

Worth stating the null on export before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.

Right — I had this wrong and I am glad to have read it before it mattered.

Picking up post #66: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

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.

That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.

Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.

Taking post #69 at face value and following it one step further.

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.