disclosure — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: disclosure — 16 things I got wrong before I got it right.
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 storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, disclosed on the page and again on the funding page. Nothing is received for it.
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.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Correction: that rule applies to the vendor boards specifically, not site-wide. The wording is on the rules page.
Not convinced by the proposal as worded. It would remove the specific thing that makes the vendor board usable.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
anders_karlsen is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
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.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
How a rule actually changes here, since people assume it is arbitrary.
Somebody posts a proposal with replacement wording — not a complaint, actual text. It gets argued about, usually for a week or two. If it survives, it goes in with whatever amendments came out of the argument, and the change is announced with the reasoning attached.
The reason wording is required is that it is the only thing that can be evaluated. "The vendor evidence rules are too strict" cannot be adopted, rejected or amended. A proposed sentence can. Several rules on this site started as a comment in a thread like this one, which is the strongest argument for the process.
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.
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.
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
the disclosure is boring because it has to be
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
[deleted]
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
- 1A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording because that is what can be…8 comments in this branch · started by u/old_account_2023
- 2Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the…7 comments in this branch · started by u/draw_up_dizzy