unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about meta is guesswork
Thinking out loud about this: unpopular opinion: most of what gets said here about meta is guesswork.
Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Tell me where this is wrong. That is the useful part of posting it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
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.
What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
Is this about a policy or about an individual removal?
Small fix — archiving happens at a year, not at six months. It is in the published policy.
nobody here is paid, including the moderators
this place sells nothing and takes nothing from any supplier
Who does this help, and who does it cost?
a rule you cannot inspect is just a preference
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
divya_bakken is right that the strict evidence rule is the asset, not the friction.
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
What would the new rule do to the vendor evidence standard?
Agreed — concrete wording or it is not a proposal.
Have you read the published formula, genuinely asking?