Search filters: what is missing — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Search filters — I have the observation and I do not trust my interpretation of it, so I am posting the observation and holding the interpretation back.
Numbers, method and the conditions under which they were collected are below. Interpret them however they warrant.
What I would check first on search filters is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
Picking up post #3: that is the part I would want checked first.
Where I have landed on search filters, 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.
Coming back to post #3, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Not a bug, but worth saying: the moderation log is paginated at twenty-five entries and there is no way to filter it by rule. Being able to read every R6 action in sequence would be genuinely instructive.
I would not lead a decision with this, but I would not ignore it either.
On search filters, I would rather understate and be corrected upward than overstate and be quoted. That is a house style here and it is a good one.
The number people quote for search filters is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.
Building on post #8 rather than restating it.
I have been on both sides of the search filters argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Worth separating two things that post #10 runs together.
Staff answer. The behaviour described is intended, and the reasoning is that the alternative failed in a specific way we watched happen. Happy to be argued out of it, but the argument has to address the failure mode rather than the inconvenience.
Post #12 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
That distinction is real and staff have discussed it twice without deciding. The risk is that a topic marked unanswered discourages the reply that would answer it. If anyone has seen it work elsewhere, say so — that is the missing evidence.
If that reads as pedantic, it is, and it has saved me twice.
The thing about search filters that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
Taking post #12 at face value and following it one step further.
Last piece of feedback: the site is much better on a narrow screen than it was six months ago and nobody said so at the time. Recording it because only the failures usually get reported.
One caution on search filters: everything above assumes the underlying documentation is what it claims to be. That assumption is doing real work and is rarely stated.
Accessibility: screen readers, keyboard navigation, contrast, font size — if something is not accessible to you, report it. Accessibility matters.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Small methodological point on search filters: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Answering the question post #21 raises rather than the one it answers.
Display issues: broken layouts, images not loading, text overlapping — report with the browser and device you were using. Display bugs are platform-specific.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Seconding that. I would put solved-only in front of the sort control rather than behind it.
If you are new and reading this thread for the answer to search filters: the answer is conditional, the conditions are in the third reply, and the rest of the thread is worth skipping.
I had written a reply contradicting post #27 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The documentation on search filters is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Confirming post #27 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
That would also be the fastest way for a new member to understand what R6 actually catches, which is narrower than people assume from the text.