someone explain moderation to me like I have not read a paper in years
someone explain moderation to me like I have not read a paper in years — that is what I am asking, and I have already read the wiki twice.
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.
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.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
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.
Adopted with an amendment, announced with the reasoning. Thank you for writing actual text.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.
Yes.
dose_creep_dan is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Agreed — concrete wording or it is not a proposal.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint
rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
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.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
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.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
- 1The evidence standard on the vendor boards requires a document, a date or a…16 comments in this branch · started by u/marit_mwangi
- 2rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint6 comments in this branch · started by u/camila_kowalski