How can I ask for clarification about the current quarter escalation guidelines for old feature requests about Ask a Question form / [quality-filter]?

Question

I have several things that I would like to escalate to staff but I'm not sure which of them meet the guidelines stated in What posts should be escalated to staff using [status-review], and how do I escalate them?.

Let's take one example. I posted in December 2020 a question tagged with feature-request and quality-filter. Today it has a score of +71, so it looks to be supported by the Meta SE community. According to the guidance posted by Catija for the current quarter they will be working on staging-ground. I have reviewed the related posts; there are mentions about the Ask a Question form and "quality control" but not specifically about quality-filter.

How can I ask if a post like the one included below is a good candidate to be escalated to staff this quarter? If so, is there a escalation "rate limit"? (is escalating 2-3 by week too much?) Should it be escalated here or on Meta SO?

A question having a single word in the body passed the quality filter (spoiler: the body contains HTML entities)

P.S. After posting this question I realized that ‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​‎​It's possible to create empty content fields - particularly question titles and bodies - on sites is being used as tracker of the different places where the empty content bug is happening. While the example is slightly different (having less characters than required Vs empty), the issue is practically the same, I think, so I closed it as duplicate. Please note that the question included in the original version is just an example. It was chosen because it was upvoted today, if necessary I could add other examples.

Answer 1

As I understand it - if it's currently on the roadmap, and it's an old post, it's fine to resurface it for attention.

How can I ask if a post like the one included below is a good candidate to be escalated to staff this quarter?

Well you refer to the post that lists the current items they are working on, and you flag it, ideally giving us information we need to decide if we need to retag it if necessary.

I'd quote what JNat said about it in the post on escalating things for review:

we ask that you focus mostly on resurfacing old questions that relate to either something only a Community Manager would be able to respond to, or to things currently being worked on by the various product teams as part of their quarterly roadmaps (which allows us to easily find these older discussions so that we can use them as part of our research).

Old posts are fair game especially if they are hard to find

If so, is there a escalation "rate limit"? (is escalating 2-3 by week too much?) Should it be escalated here or on Meta SO?

No, there's no rate limit. If its an older post, escalate it where its posted. Generally items of general interest to the network come here. SE has some SO specific initiatives which might be better there - so we trust you to use your judgement on where.

I'd note though, your specific issue is a special case and there's a post keeping track of it. As such further escalation probably isn't needed outside updating your post. As a bug, the best time to request escalation is immediately but it probably falls out the feature development scope which these escalations are meant to deal with.

Answer 2

The problems you want to escalate, are they happening a lot i.e. can you point to a few hundred or better yet a few thousand existing posts that exhibit empty titles/bodies so that we can all understand the scale of the problem?

Also why aren't the existing post quality control mechanisms such as closing, downvoting and deletion happening to these posts?

You need to consider the opportunity cost of what you're asking, if staff are fixing this bug, what aren't they doing instead that might be more valuable? That's why when you do ask for something and want it escalated, you need to demonstrate that it's a significant ongoing issue affecting the sites and making things worse for a significant number of people.