[Rules] no referral links. not once. not ever. permanent.
no referral links. not once. not ever. permanent. This affects how posts get sorted and removed, so it belongs in the open.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Reminder that no referral or affiliate links are permitted anywhere, from anybody, ever.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
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.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
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.
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
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.
Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
modmail first, always, and the thread second
- 1Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and…6 comments in this branch · started by u/katrin_diallo