For anyone who stumbles upon this - it's being implemented here: https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CONFCLOUD-69198

@Liz D

I know what you mean ... but

Our SERVER licence supports over 6000 Users.   It is actually a Free Community licence as a Not-for-profit organisation.

To adopt CLOUD under the new licencing would be financially impossible.

Now, as for using software that is out of date/support ... Well it works fine now, it will only work better in the future as Confluence continue, one can only hope, to fix one or two things before end of support.

With their track record of implementing new features, I don't think our SEREVR version as at 2024 will miss out on much ... and with their track record of REMOVING features from CLOUD without any consideration of User's activities that have become somewhat dependant on certain features, we are probably better off without having our hands and feet chopped off!

Just because Ford bring out a totally different car design doesn't mean you have to scrap the last one .. our system host will be able to "change the oil" to keep us running for quite a few years until we can find an affordable alternative 

Thanks @Liz D, couldn't agree more. I've been struggling myself to release a client knowledge base built entirely on the old editor for my clients. Been on hold for almost 1-1/2 yrs to wait until the dust settles. Closing issues like this and continuously regressing key features of the old editor makes me very reluctant in using Confluence as a KB platform for my clients.

@Rodney That may seem like a simple solution, but that is not necessarily viable for companies that depend on Confluence to meet long-term business needs. I can't imagine very many people are keen on the idea of investing multiple years of work and creating hundreds or thousands of pages of content on a platform that may or may not work properly in the future.

Adopting an unsupported platform poses unpredictable risks when it comes to utilizing marketplace plugins (who will also eventually deprecate Server support for their apps, or remove those apps altogether, because it will not be cost-effective for them either), integration with Jira or dozens of other external tools, SSO, the security of content & users, leftover bugs that will never be fixed, and more... and no sensible company is going to willingly take on that risk and pay thousands of dollars over time for it, without having an extremely specific reason to do so.

To be fair, maybe that's a good solution for an individual or small team that just likes the server platform and doesn't need to worry about marketplace apps, integrations, security, etc. And I'm sure there's still plenty of organizations running outdated versions of Server, too, so it's not unheard of - although they eventually run into enough issues from being out-of-sync that they have to upgrade anyway, or else invest manpower in developing & managing their own custom fixes. So it's not impossible, but also not recommended unless you're totally cool with taking on the extra in-house maintenance.

Most organizations are now stuck with Cloud, and after a few years it will be rare for anyone to willingly hang on to the Server platform. This means Atlassian needs to start taking critical issues with the new editor seriously if they want 99% of their entire customer base on Cloud. It has dozens of missing features & regressions that create totally unnecessary obstacles for users - most of which are conscious decisions the Atlassian team made on purpose... like page anchors, which is just utterly bewildering. There are going to be a lot of very pissed off Server users who switch to Cloud and find out that simple things they've been able to do for years are now stunted, if not impossible, and that their converted content is a broken mess. 

@Bill Bailey   if your last post is referring to the recent announcements of no new SERVER licences as of next year , as I understand it, you can of course continue using your existing SERVER instance forever but there just won't be any new version upgrades of SERVER as of 2024.  So start doing a "final" version upgrade before 2024 cut off

So the are forcing server users to the Cloud product, but the Cloud product is a feature-reduced version of Server. And not understanding the importance of anchors is just another reason that the Cloud is just not a solution for power users.

Let's say we have a large table and I want to link to certain rows in that table. In the old editor I would have used anchors. How to accomplish this in the new editor?

Every time I use the new editor I die a little inside.  The legacy editor was difficult but at least the features were there and reasonably accessible.

The new editor has exacerbated the foibles of the old editor while removing the most useful features or making them inaccessible.

Not surprising then that my latest company works almost exclusively in Google Docs and the tumbleweed is blowing through our confluence spaces...

Anchor tags for footnotes

I am also missing this feature, but my use case differs from the ones mentioned above.

We are porting huge documents with footnotes to Confluence and currently I see no way to implement a "jump to footnote" link in a convenient way. I expect the following to work:

This is some text.¹

¹ This is a footnote text.

Where ¹ is a link to the footnote text.

I have to agree with everyone else. Why did you remove such a fundamental macro/capability?? I want to include a 'back to top' link...but the new editor doesn't allow a link to the title of the page, only to subordinate headings. Test it yourself–no link hover appears when you're next to the title.