the meta thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down
the meta thing finally clicked for me and I want to write it down. Change my mind, genuinely — I have no stake in being right about this.
Moderation of individual cases happens in modmail rather than in threads, because a public discussion of one person’s removal is worse for that person than a private one.
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.
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.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.
Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
Adopted with an amendment, announced with the reasoning. Thank you for writing actual text.
Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.
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.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
evidence rules are strict here on purpose
- 1Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.…8 comments in this branch · started by u/blunt_coldbox29