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?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Meta] proposal — a flair for ranking posts — 27 comments in the full submission. View in context.
284
c/meta·submitted 10 months ago by u/copay_card_cc

[Meta] proposal — a flair for ranking posts

Metabranch of 7 comments

Putting this to the board: proposal — a flair for ranking posts. Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context. Vendor source pages carry an outbound link to the supplier’s own…

Read the full submission and all 27 comments →

This branch

7 comments, started 10 months ago
u/hub_opssite staff7 points·10 months ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tomas_lundgren4 points·10 months ago

Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?

replysharereportpermalink
u/hamza_weiss2 points·10 months ago

Right, and the storefront links on source pages are marked and disclosed, which is the honest way to do it.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rasmus_kuipers2 points·10 months ago

nobody here is paid, including the moderators

replysharereportpermalink
u/injection_site_iris1 point·10 months ago

What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?

replysharereportpermalink
u/copay_card_ccOP2 points·10 months ago

Have you taken this to modmail first?

replysharereportpermalink
u/enzo_petrescu4 points·10 months ago

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

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

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

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/meta
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.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/hub_opsu/mod_ambulatoryu/rulebook_rachaelu/quiet_moderator
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.

Full disclaimer →