the wiki thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
The title is the argument: the wiki thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down. Here is the rest of it.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
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.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
the disclosure is boring because it has to be
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
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.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
modmail first, always, and the thread second
Adopted with an amendment, announced with the reasoning. Thank you for writing actual text.
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?
Which rule specifically, and which part of it?
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
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.
Have you taken this to modmail first?
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier