Why we hide unevidenced fraud accusations and log the hiding posts 61–90
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Prices well below the rest of the market are a fact rather than a finding. They are worth noting and they do not establish anything on their own.
If the premise is wrong, everything after it is decoration.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Answering the question post #60 raises rather than the one it answers.
Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #64 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.
Narrowing post #65, because the general version has more than one answer.
The guidelines draw that line for a practical reason as much as a fair one: reports accumulate into something useful and allegations do not.
A stock listing that never changes and a lead time that never varies are both worth noticing. Real operations have variation in them.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
This follows post #67 rather than contradicting it.
The strongest single signal available cheaply is what happens when you ask a technical question. A quantitative answer inside a working day is difficult to fake at scale.
That reframing is the whole thing. The facts I already had.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a resolved case written up with the resolution, because the unresolved ones are all anyone remembers.
Posting it because the silence on this was starting to look like agreement.
The arithmetic in post #71 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Where somebody posts a concern, ask what would resolve it before arguing about it. Half of these threads end with a document nobody had asked for.
Second-hand, so weight it accordingly.
The strongest single signal available cheaply is what happens when you ask a technical question. A quantitative answer inside a working day is difficult to fake at scale.
The guidelines draw that line for a practical reason as much as a fair one: reports accumulate into something useful and allegations do not.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Post #76 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Anonymous accusations get hidden under the guidelines and the hiding is logged. That is not protection of suppliers; it is protection of the record.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
Taking post #79 at face value and following it one step further.
A stock listing that never changes and a lead time that never varies are both worth noticing. Real operations have variation in them.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Useful. I had the fact and not the reason, which turns out to be the important half.
On post #78 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Prices well below the rest of the market are a fact rather than a finding. They are worth noting and they do not establish anything on their own.
Nothing here should be read as an accusation against a named company, and the guidelines exist so that reports remain reports.
Prices well below the rest of the market are a fact rather than a finding. They are worth noting and they do not establish anything on their own.
A partial answer, offered because a partial answer beats none.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.