[Question] meta — what am I missing here
meta — what am I missing here. Searched first, found three threads that contradict each other, hence the post.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
best — the order this archive was captured in
What the ranking does, in case you assume it is hiding something.
The hot ordering combines the magnitude of a submission’s score with its age, so that a new post with moderate support can outrank an older one with more. The controversial ordering weights total vote volume by how evenly it splits, so a heavily contested thread rises above a small evenly-split one.
Both are published, and both are reproducible from the score and timestamp shown on every submission — one member here rebuilt the ordering in a spreadsheet to check. The consequence worth knowing is structural: feed position rewards early agreement, so the top comment is frequently not the best answer. Sorting by controversial occasionally is genuinely worth doing.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
modmail first, always, and the thread second
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
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?
Reminder that no referral or affiliate links are permitted anywhere, from anybody, ever.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
What breaks if we make that change?
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
What breaks if we make that change?
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
- 1What breaks if we make that change?6 comments in this branch · started by u/katrin_marchetti