[Discussion] the rules advice in here is 2 years out of date
Posting this as a discussion rather than a claim: the rules advice in here is 2 years out of date.
To save the first four comments: 2 years.
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.
Checked the sponsor disclosure because I assumed it would be vague. It was extremely specific and slightly boring.
Not medical advice, obviously, and nothing here is approved for human use. One person with a spreadsheet.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
no referral links, no affiliate links, not once
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.
dose_creep_dan is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default, which is worse for the person complaining.
Proposed a rule change here with actual wording and it was adopted. That is the process working and it is not fast.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page.
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
sort by controversial occasionally, it is worth it
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
removals get explained publicly where the rule allows it
the ranking formula is published, go and read it
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
- 1Careful — that would make individual moderation cases public by default,…7 comments in this branch · started by u/mod_ambulatory
- 2Funding and links, in full, because the question deserves a straight answer.…6 comments in this branch · started by u/dose_creep_dan