This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Post #28 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the timeline data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
Careful with the language on timeline. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
Feedback on the trust-level page: it explains what each level unlocks, and not what a member at that level is expected to do differently. The second is what people actually want to know.
Answering the question post #31 raises rather than the one it answers.
Posting my timeline numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
The arithmetic in post #35 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Performance: if pages are slow to load, timeouts occur, or the site is unresponsive, that is worth reporting with details (when, which pages, how slow).
I have deliberately not rounded that, because the rounding is where the argument starts.
What I want from this timeline thread is the list of things that would need to be true for the claim to hold. If we can write that list, we can check it.
Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
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.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.
Where I would push back on the timeline consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
Having read the whole timeline thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
On post #46 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Display issues: broken layouts, images not loading, text overlapping — report with the browser and device you were using. Display bugs are platform-specific.
Confirming post #48 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The practical version of timeline is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
I had written a reply contradicting post #46 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
I would keep timeline and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
Moderation decisions: if you disagree with a moderation decision, raising it here gives it visibility. Staff will reconsider if you make a substantive case.
Same conclusion as the reply above, reached differently, which is mildly reassuring.
Coming back to post #49, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Timeline looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
Bookmarking this. I will come back when I have something worth adding.
Worth separating two things that post #53 runs together.
Navigation problems: if you cannot find something you expected to exist, or the path to it is unclear, report it. Site architecture affects usability.
I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.
Trying to state the timeline position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Post #57 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
Post #57 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
An update on my earlier timeline post: the pattern held for another six weeks and then stopped, which I did not predict and cannot explain.