[Meta] we crossed 800k members and nothing about the rules changes
Putting this to the board: we crossed 800k members and nothing about the rules changes.
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.
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.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.
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.
Feed position is a function of early votes and time.
tomas_lundgren is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
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.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?
rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint
Which rule specifically, and which part of it?
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
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.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
- 1Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises…8 comments in this branch · started by u/dizzy_on_standing
- 2Feed position is a function of early votes and time. That structurally…6 comments in this branch · started by u/tomas_lundgren