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?
Archived. This submission is more than a year old. Votes and new comments are closed, and some of the advice in it may have been superseded — check the community wiki for the current version.
1.9k
c/meta·posted 1 year ago by u/malin_petrescu

[Discussion] can we stop arguing about ranking until somebody posts a number

Discussion Cold Box ×1 The Quiet One ×2

Slightly embarrassed to be asking this, but: can we stop arguing about ranking until somebody posts a number.

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

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.

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.

Corrections welcome, especially the pedantic ones. Pedantry is how this board earns its reputation.

1,940 up / 61 down97% upvoted60 commentsid 94olux28 Feb 2025

60 comments

30 in this archive, depth 6

best — the order this archive was captured in

u/noor_cardoso296 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/mod_ambulatoryMOD161 points·1 year ago

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

replysharereportpermalink
u/malin_petrescuOP101 points·1 year ago

Left up and flaired Proposal — it has replacement wording, which is what this board asks for.

mod_ambulatory is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.

replysharereportpermalink
u/viktor_girard73 points·1 year ago

the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate

replysharereportpermalink
u/malin_petrescuOP39 points·1 year ago·edited

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/RetaAndRegret213 points·1 year ago

removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it

replysharereportpermalink
u/solene_ilunga207 points·1 year ago

Yes. Nobody here is paid and the disclosure page says so in tedious detail, which is the correct level of tedious.

replysharereportpermalink
u/malin_petrescuOP103 points·1 year ago

What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?

replysharereportpermalink
u/RetaAndRegret249 points·1 year ago

a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference

replysharereportpermalink
u/analog_alphabet54 points·1 year ago·edited

Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything. The formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering.

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]21 points·1 year ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/malin_petrescu15 points·1 year ago

Push back: the ranking is not hiding anything.

Disagreeing with this bit: making individual cases public by default is worse for the person being moderated.

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_kowalski8 points·1 year ago

evidence rules are strict here on purpose

replysharereportpermalink
u/hassan_castellanos5 points·1 year ago

Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.

replysharereportpermalink
u/dose_creep_dan5 points·1 year ago

Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.

replysharereportpermalink
u/tuva_iyer12 points·1 year ago

this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier

replysharereportpermalink
u/blunt_coldbox-2 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/kaia_fonseca1 point·1 year ago

Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.

replysharereportpermalink
u/hedda_aguirre1 point·1 year ago

sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it

replysharereportpermalink
u/vito_chowdhury150 points·1 year ago

Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.

replysharereportpermalink
u/farid_jansen34 points·1 year ago

nobody here is paid, including the moderators

replysharereportpermalink
u/camila_marchand92 points·1 year ago

Agreed. Publishing the ranking formula is the difference between a feed and a black box, and it costs nothing to do.

replysharereportpermalink
u/bastian_moreau39 points·1 year ago

Same view — strict evidence rules make this board slower and make the archive worth reading in three years.

replysharereportpermalink
u/anders_karlsen10 points·1 year ago

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.

replysharereportpermalink
u/rosa_almeida3 points·1 year ago

the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals43 points·1 year ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/dario_ibarra18 points·1 year ago

Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.

replysharereportpermalink
u/nora_lundgren8 points·1 year ago

the ranking formula is published, go and read it

replysharereportpermalink
u/placebo_arm_pam3 points·1 year ago

This. Modmail first is not bureaucracy; it stops individual cases turning into a public pile-on.

replysharereportpermalink
u/farid_jansen1 point·1 year 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
Permalinked branches
Deep branches get their own page so a single reply chain can be linked and read on its own.
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

Janoshik Analytical

Independent HPLC and mass spec. The number you get is the number they found.

janoshik.com
Sponsored

GL Biochem (Shanghai)

Custom peptides and amino acids direct from the manufacturer since 1998. ISO 9001 / cGMP. Batch COA every order.

glbiochem.net
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.
Moderators
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.