GLPHubglpresearchhub.com
Read-only archive. GLP Research Hub is a static community record — nothing here is for sale, no account is needed, and no vote you cast is counted. Why?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Meta] proposal — a flair for wiki posts — 19 comments in the full submission. View in context.
308
c/meta·submitted 2 years ago by u/katrin_diallo

[Meta] proposal — a flair for wiki posts

Metabranch of 8 comments

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…

Read the full submission and all 19 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 2 years ago
u/stablecoin_steve15 points·2 years ago

What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?

replysharereportpermalink
u/vikram_mbeki9 points·2 years ago

Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.

replysharereportpermalink
u/katrin_dialloOP10 points·2 years ago

no referral links, no affiliate links, not once

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]5 points·2 years ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/salma_almeida2 points·2 years ago·edited

That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyc/scamalerts-26 points·2 years ago

the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site

replysharereportpermalink
u/discount_math_dm1 point·2 years ago

the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate

replysharereportpermalink
u/katrin_dialloOP1 point·2 years ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

About c/meta

Site governance in public: rule changes, moderation decisions and appeals, how the ranking works, wiki maintenance, sponsor disclosure, and the periodic argument about whether c/vendorvetting evidence standards are too strict. They are not.

23kmembers
62submissions
Aug 2023created
submissions / month, last year
Sponsored

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/meta
c/meta rules
  1. Moderation appeals go through modmail first; Meta is for policy, not individual cases.
  2. Rule-change proposals need a concrete wording suggestion.
  3. Sponsor and disclosure questions are always answered publicly.
  4. Independent community. Nobody here sells anything, and anyone who tries is banned.
  5. Not medical advice. Describe what you did; never prescribe to a stranger.
  6. Claims need evidence. Batch numbers, dated screenshots, independent test reports, or a citation.
  7. No referral links, discount codes or affiliate URLs. Permanent ban, no appeal.
  8. No contact handles, wallet addresses or tracking numbers — they identify people.
  9. Be recognisably decent. Disagree hard, insult nobody.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/hub_opsu/mod_ambulatoryu/rulebook_rachaelu/quiet_moderator
Volunteers. Unpaid, unaffiliated, and reachable through modmail only.
Before you read on

Several compounds discussed on GLP Research Hub are sold for research use only and are not approved for human use anywhere. Nothing here is medical advice and none of it is written by your clinician. If a post reads like an instruction, treat it as a description of what one stranger did.

Full disclaimer →