[Rules] why we removed your post and why we will say so publicly
why we removed your post and why we will say so publicly. Disagreement welcome, but bring a concrete alternative wording. Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says. Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on…
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed.
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Moved to modmail. Individual removals get a specific answer there rather than a public thread.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
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.
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it