three years of ranking threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of ranking threads, summarised so you do not have to read them — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording because that is what can be evaluated. Without it there is nothing to compare against the current text.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
Feed position is a function of early votes and time. That structurally favours agreeable early answers over correct late ones, which is why sorting by controversial occasionally is worth the effort.
The ranking functions are published: the hot ordering combines score magnitude with age, and the controversial ordering weights total volume by the balance between up and down votes. Both are reproducible from the numbers on each submission.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Vendor source pages carry an outbound link to the supplier’s own storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, disclosed on the page and again on the funding page. Nothing is received for it.
Have you taken this to modmail first?
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
modmail first, always, and the thread second
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a named service behind any claim about a supplier. It is what makes those threads worth reading years later.
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
ismael_varga is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
Who does this help, and who does it cost?
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
- 1Feed position is a function of early votes and time. That structurally…12 comments in this branch · started by u/wanjiru_osei
- 2ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer8 comments in this branch · started by u/rasmus_kuipers