meta is the most under-discussed thing on this board
meta is the most under-discussed thing on this board. I have gone back and forth on this for months.
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 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.
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.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
[removed by moderator]
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.