three years of rules threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
Something I keep coming back to: three years of rules threads, summarised so you do not have to read them.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.
Sponsor units are labelled as sponsored. Each vendor source page carries one outbound link to that supplier’s own storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, so you can read their account of themselves against the record on the page. Nothing is received for those links, no supplier pays for a directory position, and no rating is for sale.
No referral or affiliate links are permitted anywhere on the site, from anybody, including in the pricing threads where the temptation is highest. That rule is the reason those threads are worth reading, and it is enforced without exception. The full version of all of this is on the about page and it is deliberately boring.
What the ranking does, in case you assume it is hiding something.
The hot ordering combines the magnitude of a submission’s score with its age, so that a new post with moderate support can outrank an older one with more. The controversial ordering weights total vote volume by how evenly it splits, so a heavily contested thread rises above a small evenly-split one.
Both are published, and both are reproducible from the score and timestamp shown on every submission — one member here rebuilt the ordering in a spreadsheet to check. The consequence worth knowing is structural: feed position rewards early agreement, so the top comment is frequently not the best answer. Sorting by controversial occasionally is genuinely worth doing.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
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.
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.
Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
the disclosure is boring because it has to be
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
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 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.
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.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
How a rule actually changes here, since people assume it is arbitrary.
Somebody posts a proposal with replacement wording — not a complaint, actual text. It gets argued about, usually for a week or two. If it survives, it goes in with whatever amendments came out of the argument, and the change is announced with the reasoning attached.
The reason wording is required is that it is the only thing that can be evaluated. "The vendor evidence rules are too strict" cannot be adopted, rejected or amended. A proposed sentence can. Several rules on this site started as a comment in a thread like this one, which is the strongest argument for the process.
Is this about a policy or about an individual removal?
Is this about a policy or about an individual removal?
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
- 1Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads,…7 comments in this branch · started by u/kenji_demir
- 2Vendor source pages carry an outbound link to the supplier’s own storefront,…6 comments in this branch · started by u/runa_grimaldi