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?
Single comment threadYou are looking at one branch of [Discussion] ranking is doing more work than we give it credit for — 23 comments in the full submission. View in context.
402
c/meta·submitted 2 years ago by u/solene_ilunga

[Discussion] ranking is doing more work than we give it credit for

Discussionbranch of 8 comments

Something I keep coming back to: ranking is doing more work than we give it credit for. Had a post removed, went to modmail, got a specific explanation and disagreed with it politely. It stayed removed and I understood why. Sorted by controversial for a week and found four of the best threads I have read here. Argued…

Read the full submission and all 23 comments →

This branch

8 comments, started 2 years ago
u/zeynep_duarte16 points·2 years ago

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

replysharereportpermalink
u/rosa_almeida5 points·2 years ago

the wiki is editable by anybody with standing on the site

replysharereportpermalink
u/dexa_twice_yearlybody comp2 points·2 years ago

the ranking formula is published, go and read it

replysharereportpermalink
[removed]7 points·2 years ago

[removed by moderator]

replysharereportpermalink
u/solene_ilungaOP3 points·2 years ago

What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?

replysharereportpermalink
u/prior_auth_painappeals2 points·2 years ago

ranked feeds mean the top comment is not the best answer

replysharereportpermalink
u/vikram_mbeki5 points·2 years ago

the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate

replysharereportpermalink
u/vikram_mbeki23 points·2 years ago

Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.

replysharereportpermalink

← back to the whole thread

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

PeptideMeter Analytics

Independent testing plus vendor-level trend data. Community-funded, unaffiliated.

peptidemeter.com
More in c/meta
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.
Full rules and how they are enforced →
Moderators
u/hub_opsu/mod_ambulatoryu/rulebook_rachaelu/quiet_moderator
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.

Full disclaimer →