[Meta] proposal — a flair for moderation posts
proposal — a flair for moderation posts. Nothing about this affects the ranking maths, before anyone asks.
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.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
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.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
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.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.
Correcting my own comment above: the proposal was adopted with an amendment, not as written.
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
What breaks if we make that change?
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
the disclosure is boring because it has to be
the disclosure is boring because it has to be
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
Have you taken this to modmail first?
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
Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded.
kian_solberg is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
- 1this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier11 comments in this branch · started by u/rina_ferreira
- 2Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?8 comments in this branch · started by u/rasmus_kuipers