Post Time Separation

[RegisterRants]

I think that the time between posts should not be limited as it is now. I understand that it is in place to prevent spamming, so here is my suggestion:

The first 10 posts have no timer
All posts after that have a 30 second wait
The clock resets 10 minutes after the person's last post and goes back to the top of this list.

 

[Dan]

Can you explain your suggestion better?

Time between what posts? First 10 posts where? Goes to the top of what list?...

 

[RegisterRants]

In PHP language:

function TryToPost() {
while ($x != 0) {
if ($x > 10) {
sleep(30);
allow_post();
} else {
allow_post();
}
$x++;
if (time_between($most_recent_post,time()) > 10) {
$x = 0;
}
}

 

[Dan]

Parse error: parse error, unexpected $end in JRBHosting's code on line 17
(If you add <?php\n\n to the beginning and \n\n?> to the end.)

 

[B33R]

What's the current wait time? 60 seconds?

I think that's absolutely fine. When I was updating the Christine threads (2 threads with the text from the first copied to the second) it was annoying but it is totally necessary.

Your idea is not very good IMHO. For instance, about 6 weeks ago we had a spammer here at NP that was adding the same text to numerous posts. By the time the staff had realised and taken action*, the spammer had posted something like 40-50 posts.

That was with the normal time gap. So, with your system that spammer would've got an extra 10 free posts as well as double the amount of other posts?!
They would've posted at least 100 spam posts in that case.

I think the current system is perfect. I'd much rather have little spam (or slowed down spammers) and a decent length wait between posts, than a spammed up forum and little/no wait time.


*That is not intended as a dig at NP staff, by the way. If you'd looked at one post, you wouldn't have thought it was spam. The spammer had 2/3+ different innocuous-looking messages in rotation so you might not have recognised it as spam even after viewing 3+ posts. I just have a keen eye for spam whores.

 

[RegisterRants]

The timer is also there to prevent double posting when clicking post reply too much for people with slot internet connection who just keep clicking right?

Well, there are other ways of doing that.

about 6 weeks ago we had a spammer here at NP that was adding the same text to numerous posts. By the time the staff had realised and taken action*, the spammer had posted something like 40-50 posts.

Well, pruning that member's messages would not be too hard.

That was with the normal time gap. So, with your system that spammer would've got an extra 10 free posts as well as double the amount of other posts?!
They would've posted at least 100 spam posts in that case.

What if I said that only members with...let's say...500 posts and up got this system, whereas the rest of the members retained the 60 second wait? That way, we depreciate the likelihood of a spammer, because there will be 'x' posts required.

Parse error: parse error, unexpected $end in JRBHosting's code on line 17
(If you add <?php\n\n to the beginning and \n\n?> to the end.)

Erm...yeah...I typed that out on my PDA during lunch break...actually, 2 minutes before lunch ended....

 

[deleted984054565403]

Well, there are other ways of doing that.



Well, pruning that member's messages would not be too hard.



What if I said that only members with...let's say...500 posts and up got this system, whereas the rest of the members retained the 60 second wait? That way, we depreciate the likelihood of a spammer, because there will be 'x' posts required.



Erm...yeah...I typed that out on my PDA during lunch break...actually, 2 minutes before lunch ended....

Care to elaborate on "the other ways to do that"? :hehe:

Also, pruning is no problem -- we're trying to prevent spam.

Spam happens to everyone. I've reported scores of posts by people who have a great number of posts who still own a site or are getting paid to post a link. Chances are, if someone has been a member for long enough, they've learned to think out their posts and work with the 59-second limit. There should really be no instance when you're posting messages less than 59 seconds apart, unless it's something in B33R's case.

Just think -- if this limit was suddenly removed, the spamming and useless posts would increase probably at five times more than they're escalating now. If a member takes time to think out posts and contribute valuable information, this 59-second rule shouldn't even come into play. :tu:

I really, really think the post counts should be completely removed from the forum. They naturally encourage spam, say, when someone is about to reach a "milestone" point. They also falsely judge "seniority"/time spent on NamePros -- people may have only been members for three months and have well over 500 posts. :gl:

It's been brought up before and it's been shot down every time. Make better contributions and don't look at your post count and you'll find the quality of your posts and overall, the forum's posts increasing, as people will begin to respect what you're contributing.

 

[RegisterRants]

I really don't see how your running into a problem with the flood controls enabled. If you put enough thought and effort into your post, the time shouldn't matter.

What about something like the auction room, where time is just about everything?

Care to elaborate on "the other ways to do that"?

Simple. Make the "post reply" button AJAX-enabled. The button can grey itself out once the BROWSER detects the click, not necessarily the server. The initial click will then be sent to the server.

Honeslty, my post count had no factor in my decision to post this. The post count is not accurate whatsoever in terms of representing the member him/her -self.

 

[deleted984054565403]

What about something like the auction room, where time is just about everything?


Simple. Make the "post reply" button AJAX-enabled. The button can grey itself out once the BROWSER detects the click, not necessarily the server. The initial click will then be sent to the server.

Honeslty, my post count had no factor in my decision to post this. The post count is not accurate whatsoever in terms of representing the member him/her -self.

OK. Judging from your last post, that was the impression I got, since you said the exact opposite thing. :lol:

 

[RegisterRants]

Come again?

I don't have a clue what you mean....

 

[deleted984054565403]

Come again?

I don't have a clue what you mean....

First, you said that members with over 500 posts should be exempt from the 59-second spam reducer limit because they'd be less likely to spam.
Now, you just stated that post count isn't an accurate indicator of a member's maturity and experience. :hehe:

Don't worry, I'm just messing with you.

 

[RegisterRants]

Well, logically, members with x or more posts are (or, at least, should be) more loyal to the forums.

 

[Sabre]

Well, logically, members with x or more posts are (or, at least, should be) more loyal to the forums.

Unless all 500 of those posts were spam posts; enabled to happen in such a short time to not be noticed due to the increased number of posts that a spammer may be able to post in a short amount of time.

:blink:

Posts do not equal "loyality" to a forum; well thought out and informative posts equal the willingness to help improve the community by providing your own point of view on a particular subject or simply a few, clearly stated facts; which in turn equal "loyalty", as you are helping the forum to grow by increasing the content rich information available here.

 

[RegisterRants]

Well, lets say that I put in the time and effort to make 500 posts. No other rule infractions, a clean record. Am I any more or less likely to spam the forum(s) than someone with NO posts?

 

[deleted984054565403]

Well, lets say that I put in the time and effort to make 500 posts. No other rule infractions, a clean record. Am I any more or less likely to spam the forum(s) than someone with NO posts?

That doesn't mean a thing, really. I've seen scores of new members register with zero posts and submit great and informative posts. On the other end of the spectrum, there are members here that are so immature and have well over 500-1000 posts that you'd think they registered a month ago. As Sabre stated, it's about quality, not quantity.

About 75% of the spam posts I delete in the Contests forum are from members with over 200-300 posts.

 

[RegisterRants]

I did not ask that; I am basing this off of probability and likeliness. Also, I never said that people with lower post counts are stupid or inferior; I am just trying to explain how, generally, someone who is dedicated to the site will not have such a low post count.

 

[Sabre]

I did not ask that; I am basing this off of probability and likeliness. Also, I never said that people with lower post counts are stupid or inferior; I am just trying to explain how, generally, someone who is dedicated to the site will not have such a low post count.

Define "dedicated". Would someone who spent all their time here reading posts and learning from the forum be less "dedicated" than someone who spent all their time here but posted a lot.

Dedication is simply valuing this site over others and you don't have to post to do that.