reading meta threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly
reading meta threads from 2024 and half of it aged badly. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
sanne_laurent is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
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.
Is this about a policy or about an individual removal?
Which rule specifically, and which part of it?
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
- 1Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default,…10 comments in this branch · started by u/hedda_aguirre