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?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
402
c/meta·posted 2 years ago by u/solene_ilunga

[Discussion] ranking is doing more work than we give it credit for

Discussion Clean Column ×6

Something I keep coming back to: ranking is doing more work than we give it credit for.

Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.

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

Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.

Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.

547 up / 145 down79% upvoted23 commentsid 9yqkft12 Jan 2024

23 comments

18 in this archive, depth 4

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/sanne_novak39 points·2 years ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kaia_fonseca12 points·2 years ago

sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it

replysharereportpermalink
u/wanjiru_osei23 points·2 years ago·edited

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/mod_ambulatoryMOD13 points·2 years ago

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

replysharereportpermalink
u/yannick_petrov14 points·2 years ago

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hedda_aguirre3 points·2 years ago

Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/zeynep_duarte16 points·2 years ago

Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rosa_almeida5 points·2 years ago

the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site

replysharereportpermalink
u/dexa_twice_yearlybody comp2 points·2 years ago

the ranking formula is published, go and read it

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]7 points·2 years ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/solene_ilungaOP3 points·2 years ago

What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals2 points·2 years ago

ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer

replysharereportpermalink
u/vikram_mbeki5 points·2 years ago

the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate

replysharereportpermalink
u/vikram_mbeki23 points·2 years ago

Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.

replysharereportpermalink
u/vitamin_d_void10 points·2 years ago·edited

Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.

replysharereportpermalink
u/maren_sorensen3 points·2 years ago

Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.

replysharereportpermalink
u/soren_osei2 points·2 years ago·edited

That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.

replysharereportpermalink
u/fatima_wojcik1 point·2 years ago

Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.

replysharereportpermalink
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
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

Sigma-Aldrich Standards

Certified reference materials for peptide identity and purity work.

sigmaaldrich.com
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.