Starting this upcoming Wednesday, we will be running a pilot program to promote higher quality posts and discussion. Each Wednesday, only posts that are sufficiently in-depth will be permitted. Every other day of the week rules will remain the same as they were before.

Posts that will be considered sufficiently high quality are:

• Academic papers. Both peer-reviewed and working papers are acceptable, though posting peer-reviewed research (or from other reputable institutions like NBER) is encouraged.
• Research summaries from reputable sources. Examples include NBER Digest, AEA Research Highlights, and IZA Articles.
• Data releases directly from government and other official sources. This would include items like the BLS employment report.
• Professional commentary from major financial institutions or other economists. These pieces are typically two or more pages long (an example here), and contain some mixture of data, interpretation of that data, and forward guidance.
• In-depth articles written by economists. Not all articles written by economists meet this standard, however. As a rough rule of thumb, a Wonkish Paul Krugman column represents the lowest quality article that would meet this standard (meaning that a typical Paul Krugman column would not qualify). Articles that are light on economic analysis or perspective, heavy on political discourse, or simply too short will be removed even if they were written by an economist.

If anyone needs a good list of sources to procure material that meets this standard, the reading list is an excellent resource.

This pilot will run for an indefinite period of time with the goal of assessing how this rule affects discussion quality and community engagement. Depending on the success of this pilot, we may make it permanent, expand it, or eliminate it.

Any questions or comments are appreciated.

UPDATE: Posts are now restricted based on domains to ease the burden on the mod team. See here for more info and a list of approved domains.