[Discussion] can we stop arguing about ranking until somebody posts a number
Slightly embarrassed to be asking this, but: can we stop arguing about ranking until somebody posts a number.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
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.
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.
Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
mod_ambulatory is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.
What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
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.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
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.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
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.
- 1Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail,…13 comments in this branch · started by u/solene_ilunga
- 2Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and…9 comments in this branch · started by u/camila_marchand