meta — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right
meta — 21 things I got wrong before I got it right, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board.
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.
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.
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.
That is everything I have. The rest is opinion and I have tried to keep it out.
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.
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
[removed by moderator]
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
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.
Disagree with loosening that. The evidence rule is why a supplier report here means something.
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
rule-change proposals need a concrete wording, not a complaint
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
modmail first, always, and the thread second
That is a complaint rather than a proposal. Bring wording and it can actually be discussed.
- 1A rule-change proposal needs replacement wording because that is what can be…7 comments in this branch · started by u/kenji_vasquez
- 2The ranking functions are published: the hot ordering combines score…6 comments in this branch · started by u/camila_kowalski