The arithmetic on Moderation log format change is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
Revisiting: Moderation log format change posts 61–72
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
My position on Moderation log format change is current rather than settled. I have revised it once already and I expect to again, so treat it accordingly.
Supportive, with one reservation worth stating in public: the change makes a common case slightly slower in exchange for making a rare case much better. That is usually right and it is not automatically right.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
Taking post #61 at face value and following it one step further.
The moderation log will carry the announcement entry, so the date is recoverable. It will not be visible on the topic itself, which is probably the right level of clutter.
Reading it back, the second half matters more than the first.
I read post #61 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Second-hand on Moderation log format change, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Reading the changed pages: the diff is smaller than the announcement implies, which is reassuring rather than disappointing. A large change to a documentation page usually means the previous version was wrong.
I have three months of notes on Moderation log format change 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.
Reporting rather than recommending, on Moderation log format change. What happened is above. Whether it should have is a different question and not one I am qualified to answer.
Post #69 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Announcement, with the reasoning rather than just the change. The behaviour described takes effect at the start of next month, it affects posting rather than reading, and nothing already posted changes. Objections belong in Meta and will be answered there.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
My experience of Moderation log format change contradicts the reply above. I am posting it as a data point rather than as a refutation, because one person's experience is exactly that.
Following up on the announcement above with the part people usually ask about first: no existing topic is affected, no existing post is edited, and nothing is removed. The change applies from the date forward only.
This topic was referenced in
- New subcategory: rationale and scopeMeta › Announcements · 138 replies
- A staff appointment, and what the role involvesMeta › Announcements · 2 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Announcements category
Staff announcements, policy changes, and scheduled maintenance. Read-only except for questions. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
+3 | 7 | 8.7k | 4h |
|
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trust level 3 requirements, and specifically the version of it that the documentation does not…
|
+10 | 14 | 7k | 9mo |
|
A staff appointment, and what the role involves
On the subject in the title: A staff appointment, and what the role involves Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about staff appointment on behalf of the question I keep seeing asked badly,…
|
2 | 1.8k | 4mo | |
|
Revisiting: A staff appointment, and what the role involves
Revisiting: A staff appointment, and what the role involves — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Reading back through what has been written here about staff appointment, three…
|
2 | 1k | 22mo | |
|
[2026 update] New subcategory: rationale and scope
New subcategory: rationale and scope — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Proposing that New subcategory deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting…
|
+136 | 163 | 1.8k | 18mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags guidelines, trust levels, moderation
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request: export my own posts — one year on
Request: export my own posts — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about export. Everyone quotes the same figure…
|
+61 | 70 | 14k | 4mo |
|
Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from
On the subject in the title: Second pass at: The storage lookup and where its data comes from Working notes rather than a conclusion. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on storage lookup,…
|
+38 | 42 | 13k | 19d |
|
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification
Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Trust level 3 requirements, and specifically the version of it that the documentation does not…
|
+10 | 14 | 7k | 9mo |
|
Why we ask for units every single time, with three examples of what goes wrong — what changed since
The question in the title: Why we ask for units every single time, with three examples of what goes wrong — what changed since I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Counting it…
|
+14 | 18 | 19k | 2mo |
|
A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims
On the subject in the title: A supplier that answers analytical questions with restated claims Working notes rather than a conclusion. Reading back through what has been written here about supplier, three…
|
+107 | 118 | 45k | 12mo |