[Discussion] the wiki advice in here is 3 years out of date
the wiki advice in here is 3 years out of date. Not a hot take, just something I have not seen said plainly here.
3 years. Those are measured, not estimated, and not rounded up in my favour.
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.
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.
Please do not ask me what dose you should be on. I genuinely do not know and neither does anyone else here.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
Agreed — concrete wording or it is not a proposal.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
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.
What breaks if we make that change?
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
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.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording because that is what can be evaluated. Without it there is nothing to compare against the current text.
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
- 1the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site10 comments in this branch · started by u/kasper_cabrera