[Discussion] the moderation advice in here is 3 years out of date
the moderation advice in here is 3 years out of date, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
Hard numbers: 3 years. Anything softer than that is flagged as an impression.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
Correcting my own comment above: the proposal was adopted with an amendment, not as written.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
[removed by moderator]
Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
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.
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
- 1Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed…8 comments in this branch · started by u/sanne_novak
- 2Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was…7 comments in this branch · started by u/marit_mwangi