[Question] how do you actually verify moderation
Trying to get a straight answer on this: how do you actually verify moderation.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Screenshot none of this. Read the whole thread, including the parts where I am told I am wrong.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
Cosigning on the no-links rule.
runa_grimaldi is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
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.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
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.
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
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.
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.
- 1The ranking functions are published: the hot ordering combines score…6 comments in this branch · started by u/ice_pack_audit