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 unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about ranking is guesswork — 53 comments in the full submission. View in context.
1.4k
c/meta·submitted 6 months ago by u/wanjiru_osei

unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about ranking is guesswork

Metabranch of 8 comments

The title is the argument: unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about ranking is guesswork. Here is the rest of it. 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…

Read the full submission and all 53 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 6 months ago
u/bastian_moreau44 points·6 months ago

Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kenji_demir27 points·6 months ago

Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer.

bastian_moreau is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.

replysharereportpermalink
u/salma_almeida29 points·6 months ago·edited

Which rule specifically, and which part of it?

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyc/scamalerts20 points·6 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/wanjiru_oseiOP35 points·6 months ago

Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_karlsen10 points·6 months ago

ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer

replysharereportpermalink
u/kian_solberg12 points·6 months ago

this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier

replysharereportpermalink
u/scam_taxonomyc/scamalerts14 points·6 months ago

Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.

replysharereportpermalink

← 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

Janoshik Analytical

Independent HPLC and mass spec. The number you get is the number they found.

janoshik.com
Sponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Custom peptides and amino acids direct from the manufacturer since 1998. ISO 9001 / cGMP. Batch COA every order.

glbiochem.net
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.