post limits

i dont know what coding it would take but any chance of a "spam filter" of sorts. ie

you can make 3 new threads per day
you can post in 10 threads per day
you can make 100 posts per day outside of 1 thread

just some hastily thrown together numbers you can play with, but 99% of members would welcome it i'm sure

a reply to: Emit1
I know there exists a filter which prevents members from making threads in very quick succession (introduced after one particular member went on a spree).
Your suggested limits on other posts would put a brake on very genuine contributions in times of high excitement (e.g. when a thread is covering an ongoing dramatic situation).
I think spammers generally either bump a succession of existing threads, in which case they can be spotted and the alert raised, or start identical threads of their own, something which has been inhibited already.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

Your suggested limits on other posts would put a brake on very genuine contributions in times of high excitement (e.g. when a thread is covering an ongoing dramatic situation).

i did qualify it with the outside of one thread thing, you could make a thousand posts on 1 thread

make it 200 tenth, at least give ppl something to think about when hitting reply

Why do you want to limit someone's posting, is the question that first comes to mind.

I'd like to see a score showing how many of an OP's threads were moved to Hoax bin/Trash bin. Maybe a score plus icon representing depicting a time bandit.

Nope nope nope. The whole point in discussion-based forums like ATS is that members from all over the world can get "together" and talk. There are so many different sub-forums that I don't think it makes sense to limit our participation in them. And if there are posters we don't want to hear from, we can simply ignore them.

So what problems would this solution actually solve? Mods are pretty good at spotting and eliminating real spam. And members have been known to call out pseudo-spammers when the avalanche of questionable threads gets on our nerves. So why the need for posting limits?

a reply to: Emit1

at least give ppl something to think about when hitting reply

The fact that they're hitting reply is itself proof that they thought about it. Otherwise, people would just ignore the post.

a reply to: Emit1

Sounds like yet another hairbrain crackpot idea.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

a reply to: Emit1

I've been known to post upwards of 100 times per day.

I have 46 thousand posts in my tenure at ATS and I'm not even at the top of the troop.

Considering that ATS is a discussion board, limiting the amount of discussion possible by volume, doesn't make sense to me, as a member.

~Tenth

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Tenure? While you have credentials, you are still subject to expulsion due to failure to abide by the terms and conditions just like the best of us.

I'd rather ATS check the security of the member registration.
The guy complaining has been a member since November 2012, but only has 18 posts and one thread (this one).

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

The fact that they're hitting reply is itself proof that they thought about it. Otherwise, people would just ignore the post.

to ignore it they first need to read it right?

david, most ppl wouldnt even know these limits applied. try and find 10 that would be in the least bit inconvenienced by it through join date/post count

originally posted by: JIMC5499
I'd rather ATS check the security of the member registration.
The guy complaining has been a member since November 2012, but only has 18 posts and one thread (this one).

Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

The registered icon should in no way reflect someone's validity on ATS. You would never guess that I've been around just as long as you have, would you?

a reply to: TheLotLizard

I'll stand by what I said.

a reply to: Emit1

Sounds like a socialist attempt,I think there are like a quarter million on here,why are you the one to make a rule,shouldn't this be voted on?or is it a suggestion that ones who don't pay should be limited?

I THINK the OP was trying to prevent spam/ trolly stuff from flooding the discussions, perhaps that was their train of thought with this, but who am I to assume to know.

I wouldn't care too much because I don't post THAT much anyhow, but on a small level, I don't think it's the best Idea because obviously it will work out poorly for some very good contributors of this site. But as the OP said they are just providing some random numbers, the base idea though is the same regardless of the specific numbers.

I think I feel your desire with this, but I'm also unsure about how grand of a plan it is myself.

-Alee

a reply to: Oldtimer2

a vote sounds good to me. nothing to do with donations or anything

It's called something like 'flood control' on IPB (Invision Power Boards) forums and can be switched on or off.This only allows (or doesn't allow) any member to post more than X number of times in X time period.This is more to stop spamming such as people posting lots of 2 or 3 word answers to quickly qualify for posting priveleges.

I don't see any other reason to limit what is basically the lifeblood of ATS?

a reply to: NerdGoddess

suppose when you turn on the telly it randomly switched to cnn for 20 seconds every couple minutes.. kind of annoying imo. not a grand plan just a suggestion..seems folks arent that into it though so it prolly wont happen

imagewerx what is the lifeblood of ats? if its the same 6 ppl posting 11 threads and 427 posts a day i dont get it

originally posted by: Emit1
imagewerx what is the lifeblood of ats? if its the same 6 ppl posting 11 threads and 427 posts a day i dont get it

If this were in fact accurate how would those people prevent other people from posting?