three years of wiki threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of wiki threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
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.
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.
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.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
modmail first, always, and the thread second
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
Have you taken this to modmail first?
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
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.
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 the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments.
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide.
kaia_fonseca is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
- 1Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads,…8 comments in this branch · started by u/katrin_diallo
- 2vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked7 comments in this branch · started by u/draw_up_dizzy