45 seconds.... Thats nothing

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Has anyone noticed how short the post limit is, One every 45 seconds! how annoying is that, We should lower that to atleast 20 seconds.

 

So I don't hate it.

and spammers do.

[Danqazmlp]

I'm probably wrong here, but it might be different in different areas of the forum.

 

Apart from that, i think it was 30 seconds on the old forum but i'm not totally sure, i rarely met the limit.

[MageUK]

Has anyone noticed how short the post limit is, One every 45 seconds! how annoying is that, We should lower that to atleast 20 seconds.

 

So I don't hate it.

and spammers do.

 

It was 60 seconds on the old forum - I can put it back to what it was if you want, or you can keep the reduction to 45 seconds. Your choice.

[dsavi]

Wait a second... You're saying that it's short, so we should lower it? And if you don't hate it, why do you want it to be changed? Can you rewrite or reformulate your post?

 

(FYI it was 60 seconds on the old forum)

[obfuscator]

This has been discussed to death, and it isn't happening.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

It felt much shorter in the last forum pure_mage uk, But I was wrong. I keep meeting it.

One of the problems is that if you click reply you can't even open it unless its fourty five seconds, In the old forum you could begin your post and begin after it is typed.

 

And I want it lowered.

[Rainy_Day]

It felt much shorter in the last forum pure_mage uk, But I was wrong. I keep meeting it.

One of the problems is that if you click reply you can't even open it unless its fourty five seconds, In the old forum you could begin your post and begin after it is typed.

 

And I want it lowered.

If someone is making a post every 20 seconds, it's probably not a post worth anyone's time. The only place I can see a low/no flood control being useful is Forum Games.

[Skull]

It felt much shorter in the last forum pure_mage uk, But I was wrong. I keep meeting it.

One of the problems is that if you click reply you can't even open it unless its fourty five seconds, In the old forum you could begin your post and begin after it is typed.

 

And I want it lowered.

If someone is making a post every 20 seconds, it's probably not a post worth anyone's time. The only place I can see a low/no flood control being useful is Forum Games.

I'm sure you could have posted that in 20 seconds, does that mean I should disregard it?

[n_odie]

<_< 45 seconds works just fine. Even more so now that the PM system doesn't affect it.

[das]

Personally I was all for extending it to an hour...

ZING

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

Can we start making posts before the 45 time limit and then only post it after 45 seconds like in the old forum?

[MageUK]

Can we start making posts before the 45 time limit and then only post it after 45 seconds like in the old forum?

 

You should be able to using fast reply.

[The Observer]

I don't mind it to be honest, and as someone said, making quality posts certainly takes more than 45 seconds.

 

Or, being devil's advocate, the moderators have a slightly biased view on the matter considering it doesn't effect them and only users.

[Wongtong]

You could open up notepad and write a post. :P

[obfuscator]

I don't mind it to be honest, and as someone said, making quality posts certainly takes more than 45 seconds.

 

Or, being devil's advocate, the moderators have a slightly biased view on the matter considering it doesn't effect them and only users.

Incorrect, Flood limit can affect moderators too. However - its' the moderators who see the positive side effects of having flood limit in place.

[The Observer]

I don't mind it to be honest, and as someone said, making quality posts certainly takes more than 45 seconds.

 

Or, being devil's advocate, the moderators have a slightly biased view on the matter considering it doesn't effect them and only users.

Incorrect, Flood limit can affect moderators too. However - its' the moderators who see the positive side effects of having flood limit in place.

 

What I meant is that the moderators do not have a flood limit.

[InkofDeath]

Please go read this topic if you're committed to this suggestion:

 

http://forum.tip.it/index.php?showtopic=217455&view=findpost&p=3316820

 

I often have multiple threads open in addition to a PM and when I try to reply to one, then the next, and so on, the flood limit does bother me a lot. Hopefully when the next one comes out we'll switch... Until then I'm thinking there's not much we can do.

 

When I retired from being an admin, I ran into so many flood control problems, it drove me insane. Being a moderator/admin spoils us in that sense

 

But at the same time, it does prevent spammers as you said and it helps more than you may think. Earlier today a user was spamming graphic images. As a global moderator, I couldn't ban him but had to wait for a super moderator or admin to come online. Before he was banned, I had to constantly refresh his post history, removing his inappropriate threads as he created them. Had he been able to create threads 2x faster, I might have gone insane.

 

Let's give an example. http://forum.tip.it/...p?f=12&t=779648. It took me approx. 3 seconds to click on the link, read the post, and click on the 'reply' button. It takes me about 5 seconds to type "No, it just drains slower in the regular zones" and hit post. In under 10 seconds, I have accurately read and responded to a H&A thread, completely answering the posters question.

 

At any given time I have several dozen tabs open, with at least 15 dedicated to tip.it (22 open to tip.it pages as I speak). It's called multitasking, and I can accurately and helpfully respond to a thread in under 10 seconds, as illustrated above. Unfortunately, for the 10 seconds I spend replying, I spend 50 seconds clicking 'submit' and waiting for the timer to run off. If I click too fast, it dumps me to the thread page without submitting my reply without informing me.

 

http://forum.tip.it/index.php?showtopic=217455&view=findpost&p=3322539

So the first time, it takes me about half an hour to read through a 5-8 page thread? Ok, good, I write a post up, and someone eventually posts back. Ok, so I'll have to wait till they write a post and then submit it, then I'll have to counter or discuss their argument/discussion. It sounds reasonable to have a 1 minute, or higher timer in this situation.

 

 

 

However it's not ever like this. I have around 30 threads at the least I am always checking. I have read every post, or posted a considerable amount in the thread. So while I don't need to take half an hour to read posts, it only takes me a few seconds to read and then a few more to reply.

 

Oh, and I'm not even talking about threads like the SSBB thread, the WoW thread, or any thread where it is one or two liner posts, but have significance.

 

So now I have to wait a minute for say 20 of those 30+ threads...but I don't need to wait a minute to respond to each thread, I only need 20 seconds?

 

So there's 20 minutes in waiting, which is more than posting. Great forum experience for me! Especially if I needed to PM someone or ask them a question about when they'll be online tonight for a game, or if they have this game, or if they can trade me this in RS, or continue on this discussion from some thread...etc.

 

These are the arguments that were brought up in the previous thread and there was no counter-argument to why they weren't feasible, other than that spammers may be able to spam more.

-----

 

Forums that people would run into the delay the most:

 

- H&A

- Rants

- Blogscape

- Video Games & Consoles

- Music, Movies & Television

- Forum Games

- Private forums; but why should they even have a limit in a private forum?

 

---

 

There may be solutions to the spamming problem though:

 

- Limit the overall posts in half an hour to 50 & overall threads to 5; while the time limit is set at something more userfriendly

- After 700 posts let the time limit go down to 20 seconds; the odd case may spam after 700 posts, but really its negligible if hundreds of users are enjoying this feature

- I don't even think there's a mod, or its even possible to reduce the time limit by the amount of posts, other than using usergroups, which may take too much time to complete IIRC how the usergroups work in IPB - It's still doable though.

 

If anyone can see the problems in the above solutions post. Or are the problems that may arise from the solutions negligible to the reward from using the possible solution? Personally, I run into the time limit more than I'd like to.

[obfuscator]

I don't mind it to be honest, and as someone said, making quality posts certainly takes more than 45 seconds.

 

Or, being devil's advocate, the moderators have a slightly biased view on the matter considering it doesn't effect them and only users.

Incorrect, Flood limit can affect moderators too. However - its' the moderators who see the positive side effects of having flood limit in place.

 

What I meant is that the moderators do not have a flood limit.

And what I meant is that moderators, in certain situations, do have the flood limit.

[tripsis]

I don't mind it to be honest, and as someone said, making quality posts certainly takes more than 45 seconds.

 

Or, being devil's advocate, the moderators have a slightly biased view on the matter considering it doesn't effect them and only users.

Incorrect, Flood limit can affect moderators too. However - its' the moderators who see the positive side effects of having flood limit in place.

 

What I meant is that the moderators do not have a flood limit.

Moderators only don't have the flood limit in forums that they moderate. At least that's how it was in phpBB.

[jemathonical]

It's just a few seconds, wait.

[Laikrob]

Moderators only don't have the flood limit in forums that they moderate. At least that's how it was in phpBB.

The same is the case here.

[The Observer]

Moderators only don't have the flood limit in forums that they moderate. At least that's how it was in phpBB.

The same is the case here.

 

Hmm, I was under the impression that it wasn't like that because of the comments that were on the previous forums.

 

But as I said, I personally don't mind the flood limit, so it doesn't effect me.

[JoeDaStudd]

I just noticed this.

 

Yes its better then 60 seconds, but its still extremely annoying when you want to post something short and sweet.

 

I post a lot of H&A and tech support which most of the questions deserve a paragraph answer, but some can be as short as 20 characters. If I post a long post on one topic, but want to post a quick answer, say "70exp/h", I have to wait. By which time I just either give up helping people or get frustrated with it.

 

I've just looked over the intro guide for IPB and it states its possible to disable flood control for groups. Would it not be possible to have a group with selected members (say been with TIF x time or had x number of posts) with this option ticked?

 

I'm just saying there are some of us who have been very loyal to TIF and always helped others and this would be a nice reward for them/us.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

I just noticed this.

 

Yes its better then 60 seconds, but its still extremely annoying when you want to post something short and sweet.

 

I post a lot of H&A and tech support which most of the questions deserve a paragraph answer, but some can be as short as 20 characters. If I post a long post on one topic, but want to post a quick answer, say "70exp/h", I have to wait. By which time I just either give up helping people or get frustrated with it.

 

I've just looked over the intro guide for IPB and it states its possible to disable flood control for groups. Would it not be possible to have a group with selected members (say been with TIF x time or had x number of posts) with this option ticked?

 

I'm just saying there are some of us who have been very loyal to TIF and always helped others and this would be a nice reward for them/us.

Yeh, you could have a sort of request system :).

 

Adrenal.... Talk about making people feel bad :(

[InkofDeath]

To be honest the quickest solution to pleasing the majority here is to lower flood control to 20 seconds for those with over 1000 or 1500 posts. Even though posts do not show maturity or any type of prestige within the forums (unless you know its a considerable amount like 8k+), having over a thousand of fifteen-hundred posts does prove some loyalty to Tip.It, and this would be a nice small reward for the majority of us.

 

Yes, there may be people who only post to get to a thousand or fifteen-hundred, but really, it'll take at least a month of hardcore posting to get to such an amount, and by that time the user would have alerted some red flags along the way, if they were just going to throw their account away. Even if a user does make an account and use Tip.It for this reason, the 25 second difference isn't worth devoting hours into Tip.It just to spam. I can hardly see it being such a huge issue that it would make the mods cry. I know a large chunk of users that would benefit from this, and if the mods here want to inform us how many users over 800 posts are banned for spamming inappropriate images/text on the forums on a monthly basis, that would definitely help this suggestion from going somewhere.

 

And then there's the old argument that people would just spam anyways to get to 1500 or 1000 posts so they can get that 'reward' or 20 second timer. The problem here is that there's already an amount of one line posts every day. It will be negligible and it will not appear as people are spamming since the problem of one line posts is already existent, but it won't turn out to be a huge issue or problem. And to even reduce any effects this change could have on spammers, the flood control and the group move could all be kept quiet. This way of implementing the suggestion would help the ones in favour of this topic and it wouldn't create a huge wave of users posting to get to 1500 posts or 1000.

 

People will make 5-10 posts and realize how long it will take them to get 200 to 400 posts to reach that mark for the lower flood control and they'll realize its not worth it. Though I would imagine there to be a small minority which do go all the way, but they all wouldn't be spamming their posts.

 

If a mod wants to comment on any of the questions or suggestions of implementation made in this post, it would definitely help the life of this suggestion and stop it from being either dug up time and time again or end it entirely. You have users that want it to be lowered, and there's been four topics on this issue in the past two years. Two topics made it to three pages. It's an issue.