the disclosure question that gets asked weekly, answered properly
the disclosure question that gets asked weekly, answered properly — a position I have arrived at slowly and would like tested.
Argued against the strict evidence rule for a year. Then read a supplier thread on another site and stopped arguing.
Complained about a rule without proposing anything and was politely pointed at this page. Fair.
Edited a wiki page for the first time and nothing bad happened, which is apparently the point.
Would rather be corrected in public than confident in private.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments. That keeps a three-year-old thread from being reopened with a reply nobody will see in context.
Submissions older than a year are archived: readable, linkable, and closed to new comments.
Agreed — concrete wording or it is not a proposal.
Read the ranking formula out of scepticism and reproduced the ordering in a spreadsheet. It does what it says.
[deleted]
Is this about a policy or about an individual removal?
Yes — a proposal with concrete wording gets discussed. A complaint about the rules in general does not.
Cosigning on the no-links rule. It is the only reason the pricing threads are trustworthy.
the archive-after-a-year policy is deliberate
Which rule specifically, and which part of it?
Vendor source pages carry an outbound link to the supplier’s own storefront, marked nofollow and sponsored, disclosed on the page and again on the funding page. Nothing is received for it.
Who does this help, and who does it cost?
sponsor disclosure is on the about page in full
What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?
What is the concrete wording you would replace it with?
This is the principle the whole site is built on. Publish it or do not enforce it.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one. Different formula, different behaviour.
That is the controversial ordering, not the hot one.
Adding the practical note — the formula is published and you can reproduce the ordering yourself.
vendor source pages link storefronts and the link is marked
Agreed that the top comment is not the best answer. The ranking optimises for early agreement.
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.
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.
I would not archive earlier. The old threads are the most-searched thing on the site.
- 1Vendor source pages carry an outbound link to the supplier’s own storefront,…7 comments in this branch · started by u/salma_almeida