[Discussion] are the c/vendorvetting evidence rules too strict (no)

The title is the whole question — are the c/vendorvetting evidence rules too strict (no) — but here is why I am asking.

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.

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.

Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.