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 the meta thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down — 19 comments in the full submission. View in context.
381
c/meta·submitted 11 months ago by u/kenji_demir

the meta thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down

Metabranch of 8 comments

the meta thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this. 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…

Read the full submission and all 19 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 11 months ago
u/blunt_coldbox2932 points·11 months ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tomas_lundgren8 points·11 months ago

Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.

Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kenji_demirOP-32 points·11 months ago

Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?

replysharereportpermalink
u/tomas_lundgren1 point·11 months ago

Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.

replysharereportpermalink
load more comments (4) →

← 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

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
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.
Moderators
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.