Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

22
  • 27
    I don't think anyone is opposed to the limit's existence or even the 30 second interval, but instead how the system enforces it. In particular, I think that resetting the comment timer increases user frustration with no actual benefit. Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 5:12
  • 2
    the benefit is that people don't pound on the button, spamming our servers. Seems pretty clear to me. You can pound on the button as much as you like now -- as long as you're cool with perpetual time-out. Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 6:34
  • 16
    Why not have the client JS handle the timeout? Granted, it's a programming site, so you'd have to handle it server-side as well, but at least it wouldn't spam the server. That, or you could disable the "Add Comment" button when the "You may only submit a comment every 30 seconds" message is up, forcing them to continually dismiss the message if they want to push their comment through. Both solutions, IMO, would be better than resetting the timer, especially since it's not apparent through the system messages that that's being done. Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 6:47
  • 11
    Aditionally, one use case you are effectively punishing is when you have more than 600 characters to write. It has happened more than once to me. I write the complete comment, delete the trailing characters to paste them in the next comment, and then I have to wait, even more carefully now.
    – Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 6:54
  • 15
    Jeff, again: the problem isn't what belongs or doesn't belong where. The problem is the punishment (or 'encouragement' as you call it) you are inflicting on your users and the world at large. What you are saying is "if you are stupid enough to want to use the site in a way I don't approve of, you deserve your punishment and don't worry, I'll make sure you get it.". That is not how things should work.
    – Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 7:36
  • 11
    No, the punishment is the frustration that provokes not knowing what is going to happen, you expect to be able to comment only to find out you cannot, especially in the new exponential increase mode. Note that I'm not complaining about the fixed 30 seconds limit, that is already bad, but not awful as the exponential increase.
    – Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 8:45
  • 8
    Deleting a comment takes 0 seconds, yet it's treated as writing a new one. Why am I forced to wait 30 seconds?
    – alex
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 10:12
  • 15
    Let's see -- overwhelming community support? Check. [status-declined]? Check. I strongly encourage you to reconsider, Jeff. I know you won't, but you really ought to consider listening to the community here. The "new" policy is draconian.
    – John Rudy
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 14:17
  • 9
    hmmm... regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issue, the community has spoken. To quote from stackoverflow.com/about: 'We don't run Stack Overflow. You do'.
    – CJM
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 15:35
  • 14
    'We don't run Stack Overflow. You do. Except when we don't agree with you, of course'
    – Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod
    Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 16:14
  • 21
    "5 words * 1.66 words per second = 8.3 seconds" - no, it's actually 8.3 words squared per second, whatever that's meant to mean. 5 words divided by 1.66 words per second = 3.1 seconds. xkcd.com/687 Anyway, you'd be amazed at how often this does hit me when I'm posting perfectly reasonable comments. This is particularly relevant when posting comments to multiple answers - often along the lines of, "No, that's wrong because of X - see my response to Y." I suggest that if you keep this server-side for the moment, you record the rejected comments. See if they're as bad as you expect.
    – Jon Skeet
    Commented Jan 17, 2010 at 7:47
  • 13
    That might work for recent questions - it wouldn't for old ones which aren't gaining much attention. Likewise I don't think it's much help when there are 10 answers, say 5 of which share the same flaw. (That's not terribly uncommon.) You've got to wait for other users to happen to see the single comment, and decide to mention it on the other answers. Additionally, it looks like I'm discriminating - choosing to criticise one answer and leave others. Maybe I should start keeping a log of comments where I'm being slowed down by the 30 second rule, and post examples...
    – Jon Skeet
    Commented Jan 17, 2010 at 9:01
  • 5
    Jeff - I'm curious as to your comment about spamming your servers - is comment-posting really causing that much load? Is it more load than the (no doubt endless) requests about changing it on Meta will cause? ;) Commented Jan 17, 2010 at 9:34
  • 8
    I've just run into it now. I typed in this comment: "@unknown: In that case it would be Action instead of Func<string, int>." in this post: stackoverflow.com/questions/2082615/… - after just replying to a different comment.
    – Jon Skeet
    Commented Jan 17, 2010 at 21:45
  • 17
    This is absolutely horrid user experience.
    – ceejayoz
    Commented Jan 18, 2010 at 16:44