
|
View Full Version : Why must I wait 180 seconds?
Maple-Hosting 12-17-2009, 06:09 PM It's so hard to wait 3 minutes between one post to another...
Please decrease it to 60 or so and if someone spams just ban him.
It's so inconvenient.
This forum requires that you wait 180 seconds between posts. Please try again in X seconds.
Tyler 12-17-2009, 06:10 PM When you wait 180 seconds, it gives you more time to put some thought into your posts as well. Not only does it increase quality of posts, but it decreases the amount of posts someone can spam the forum.
Maple-Hosting 12-17-2009, 06:28 PM When you wait 180 seconds, it gives you more time to put some thought into your posts as well. Not only does it increase quality of posts, but it decreases the amount of posts someone can spam the forum.
But 3 minutes? That's too much!
Also, What I do now is just write my post, keep the browser open until the time has passed and clicks submit;
It's very uncomfortable...
Could the admins consider changing this?
MikeTrike 12-17-2009, 06:51 PM I say the admin's should change it, under one condition.
The condition:
Morhsn pays a $1.00 USD fine for every SPAM post that occurs as a result.
Note to Morhsn:
You will become very poor, very rapidly. ;)
Without rules, people tend to go bat s*** crazy. Especially the kiddies!
Maple-Hosting 12-17-2009, 06:54 PM I say the admin's should change it, under one condition.
The condition:
Morhsn pays a $1.00 USD fine for every SPAM post that occurs as a result.
But if you talk about spam, It doesn't matter how long the guy has to wait because you can delete all of the guy's posts with a click of a button... So, one post or 100 posts wont make a difference! :D
MikeTrike 12-17-2009, 06:58 PM But if you talk about spam, It doesn't matter how long the guy has to wait because you can delete all of the guy's posts with a click of a button... So, one post or 100 posts wont make a difference! :D
It does matter, because it matters how much crap he can bombard the forum with before its noticed.
One post per minute = 60 posts per hour
One post per 3 minutes = 20 posts per hour
It is a reduction of 2/3rds. A mod is likely able to better detect a crap posting user. i.e. that's why you almost NEVER see spam on WHT. ;)
What makes a great forum?
Quality content
Quality moderators
Quality administrators
and some other things
They do a great job of it. WHT is hugely successful! Take a look at DP and you get the idea that some people don't know what they are doing. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Maple-Hosting 12-17-2009, 07:00 PM It does matter, because it matters how much crap he can bombard the forum with before its noticed.
One post per minute = 60 posts per hour
One post per 3 minutes = 20 posts per hour
It is a reduction of 2/3rds. A mod is likely able to better detect a crap posting user. i.e. that's why you almost NEVER see spam on WHT. ;)
What makes a great forum?
Quality content
Quality moderators
Quality administrators
and some other things
They do a great job of it. WHT is hugely successful! Take a look at DP and you get the idea that some people don't know what they are doing. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
Ok...
So why not make it that after a guy gets 50 posts, there is only 30 seconds limit?
I mean, A guy wouldn't post 50 meaningful posts just to spam and get his account banned!
I think that's a great idea, that way it's hard to spam on one hand and it's easy to post for the others.
MattS 12-17-2009, 07:06 PM It's so hard to wait 3 minutes between one post to another...
Please decrease it to 60 or so and if someone spams just ban him.
It's so inconvenient.
I know a solution. Go Premium :D:D:D
I forget the wait time but it's way less than that and makes iNET happily rich.
MikeTrike 12-17-2009, 07:06 PM Ok...
So why not make it that after a guy gets 50 posts, there is only 30 seconds limit?
I mean, A guy wouldn't post 50 meaningful posts just to spam and get his account banned!
I think that's a great idea, that way it's hard to spam on one hand and it's easy to post for the others.
What if his account gets hijacked?
I know a solution. Go Premium :D:D:D
I forget the wait time but it's way less than that and makes iNET happily rich.
I think the wait time goes down as your posts increase too. Not sure about that though, a leader will have to step in and correct me if I'm wrong.
Alex
MikeTrike 12-17-2009, 07:15 PM http://www.webhostingtalk.com/memberships/premium/
Lower Flood Limit
Cut your wait time between posts and searches.
colbyt 12-17-2009, 07:34 PM No insult intended to the OP, most people who post more than one every 180 seconds are cut & paste posters looking to inflate their post count for whatever comes after.
Or they are placing a large quanity of SPAM and want to do it qucikly.
Personally I don't care to read either of the above type posts.
Maple-Hosting 12-17-2009, 07:50 PM No insult intended to the OP, most people who post more than one every 180 seconds are cut & paste posters looking to inflate their post count for whatever comes after.
Or they are placing a large quanity of SPAM and want to do it qucikly.
Personally I don't care to read either of the above type posts.
Not taken.
Read my posts please, No spam or anything; I think fast I guess? :eek:
Dougy 12-17-2009, 07:50 PM Mine is 30 seconds..
I think the wait time goes down as your posts increase too.
It's based on time as a member and posts if you don't purchase a membership to shorten it.
It's 90 seconds until you've reached 45 days and 100 posts.
Once you hit 90 days and 550 posts, it's 30 seconds.
Sorry, folks...was looking at it incorrectly. :blush:
BH-Greg 12-17-2009, 11:20 PM Its good that its 180 seconds, It gives you time to think it out. Also stops spammers from posting rapidly.
ldcdc 12-18-2009, 03:50 AM because you can delete all of the guy's posts with a click of a button... So, one post or 100 posts wont make a difference!
Actually, it often does. The spammer replies in threads, people quote his post for a "stupid spammer" laugh or whatever. So, the moderator has to go and visit all the threads to make sure they're properly cleaned up.
Maple-Hosting 12-18-2009, 07:35 AM Actually, it often does. The spammer replies in threads, people quote his post for a "stupid spammer" laugh or whatever. So, the moderator has to go and visit all the threads to make sure they're properly cleaned up.
I didn't think about that...
How can it be that there isn't an addon to remove that for you guys? :eek:
Too many variables for something automated to remove correctly. Some members will quote that and another post, or simply refer to it and so on. Needs someone reading it. :(
bqinternet 12-18-2009, 06:10 PM I have to say, the mods do a pretty good job at cleaning up spam. I spammed this thread twice earlier today, and they cleaned it up soon after. Well done! :D
HostXNow 12-18-2009, 06:32 PM I reported it. ;p
Glad we passed the audition. :rolleyes:
Mathy 12-20-2009, 10:47 AM I agree the 180 limit is a way too harsh against spammers.
I mean, just take a look at it:
(60 * 60) / 180 = 20.
If my calculations (Yay, 4th grade math) are correct, then with the current limit, you would be able to spam 20 messages on an hour.
Are you kidding me? That's more than enough for a spammer to stop from even trying! I mean, the admin activity here is very high, so any spam would be discovered within 15 minutes (At least I'd say so).
Then, the spammers account would be banned, and all his work would be lost anyway. His posts would be removed.
Why risk that, looking from the spammer's perspective?
If you put it all the way down to 60 seconds, then you would be able to spam 60 messages on an hour. That's still way too little for a spammer to actually start spamming, and risk getting banned (which again, probably will happen within 15 minutes).
I don't see the thread in a 60-second limit.
YDGH-Corey 12-20-2009, 11:14 AM I agree the 180 limit is a way too harsh against spammers.
I mean, just take a look at it:
(60 * 60) / 180 = 20.
If my calculations (Yay, 4th grade math) are correct, then with the current limit, you would be able to spam 20 messages on an hour.
Are you kidding me? That's more than enough for a spammer to stop from even trying! I mean, the admin activity here is very high, so any spam would be discovered within 15 minutes (At least I'd say so).
Then, the spammers account would be banned, and all his work would be lost anyway. His posts would be removed.
Why risk that, looking from the spammer's perspective?
If you put it all the way down to 60 seconds, then you would be able to spam 60 messages on an hour. That's still way too little for a spammer to actually start spamming, and risk getting banned (which again, probably will happen within 15 minutes).
I don't see the thread in a 60-second limit.
The time limis is there.... for...the...spammers. You're basically talking from a spammers perspective saying that the current implementation is good because spammers won't even try to spam :). I think they are going to keep the system this way.
Mathy 12-20-2009, 11:15 AM What I am saying is that even with 60 seconds limit, it'll still be useless for the spammers to start spamming.
Now a days i don't see that message before.. lolz.. i think i need to have a look into social issues... lolz
YDGH-Corey 12-20-2009, 07:28 PM Now a days i don't see that message before.. lolz.. i think i need to have a look into social issues... lolz
Could you clarify? I have no clue what the heck that meant.
oliviakitty 12-20-2009, 08:41 PM Is it really 180 seconds? Does that apply to users with a certain number of posts?
I don't think I wait a whole 3 minutes between posts, hm...
CArmstrong 12-20-2009, 08:42 PM Is it really 180 seconds?
I don't think I wait a whole 3 minutes between posts, hm...
It's based on time as a member and posts if you don't purchase a membership to shorten it.
It's 90 seconds until you've reached 45 days and 100 posts.
Once you hit 90 days and 550 posts, it's 30 seconds.
Sorry, folks...was looking at it incorrectly. :blush:
Ten characters
oliviakitty 12-20-2009, 09:00 PM Ten characters
Oh thanks, I just read the OP.
:blush:
DakNet 12-20-2009, 11:06 PM I don't think there's a problem. Just doing something else for the 3 minutes and then submit your post
MikeTrike 12-20-2009, 11:13 PM Or just read some other posts.
Outlaw Web Master 12-21-2009, 07:26 AM I think it should be raised to 5 minutes.
owm
Santema 12-23-2009, 02:03 PM 3 minutes to:
Make the post.
go back to the main forum.
Read the topic list.
Read the replies in a topic.
Think about what you will answer.
Type your answer.
Post it.
I think 3 minutes is fine.
I think it should be raised to 5 minutes.
owm
amen to that
Maple-Hosting 12-23-2009, 02:12 PM 3 minutes to:
Make the post.
go back to the main forum.
Read the topic list.
Read the replies in a topic.
Think about what you will answer.
Type your answer.
Post it.
I think 3 minutes is fine.
No offense but In that case you surf, think and write damn slow! :)
Anyhow, I understand the problem of spammers, so I guess it will stay this way after all.
Thanks though :rolleyes:
jackinnes 12-24-2009, 07:40 AM I agree. You need to think about your posts but in most cases it doesn't take three minutes, especially if you're an amazingly fast typer haha.
hurray 12-28-2009, 01:29 PM Waiting 3 minutes it's kinda boring but it's necessary to stop spammers from transforming this forum to a junk yard.
YDGH-Corey 02-09-2010, 12:41 PM 3 minutes to:
Make the post.
go back to the main forum.
Read the topic list.
Read the replies in a topic.
Think about what you will answer.
Type your answer.
Post it.
I think 3 minutes is fine.
I think about what I'm going to say while I'm reading the post. I don't usually read 10 page long posts, (but I did the other day).. and by the time I was done reading it I knew what I was going to say. Noone actually reads every topic list in every forum so here is the real order.
View Todays Active Posts - 1s
Click The First One - 1s
Read The First One - 30s
Type Your Reply - 10s
|