[Meta] proposal — a flair for wiki posts
proposal — a flair for wiki posts. Nothing about this affects the ranking maths, before anyone asks.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
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.
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.
The ranking functions are published: the hot ordering combines score magnitude with age, and the controversial ordering weights total volume by the ba
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
Which rule specifically, and which part of it?
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.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
[removed by moderator]
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Is this about a policy or about an individual removal?
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?
- 1What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?8 comments in this branch · started by u/stablecoin_steve