Good point, I agree. Those rules are very outdated and not well explained. Basically what we want to avoid is just the low-effort blogs with many low-quality articles that look more like hot takes on Twitter rather than articles with actual information. I'm not sure how to explain this, anyone has an idea how we could rewrite it?
Or maybe just remove the rules and decide on a per-case basis? The caveat is people could accuse moderators of doing favoritism and argue why we didn't include XYZ site
The main role of the website is to distribute informative articles
The purpose of this was just to exclude blogs that post only images or embedded content because it doesn't integrate well into a news aggregator
Average of at least 4 new posts per year (inactive sources will be disabled)
Inactive sources are automatically disabled by our robots, but not removed from the site. But the minimum of 4 is not enforced, IIRC just 1 post is enough to keep a source active. Also, we have recently added a feature to check if inactive sites start posting again so we can automatically re-activate the sources. So it's not needed to explain it in the text.
