Timeline for Please return the comment rate limit to a flat 30 seconds
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 18, 2010 at 16:44 | comment | added | ceejayoz | This is absolutely horrid user experience. | |
| Jan 17, 2010 at 21:45 | comment | added | Jon Skeet |
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.
|
|
| Jan 17, 2010 at 15:39 | comment | added | John Rudy | While I'm still not thrilled about the sliding timer, I applaud the move to 25 seconds. Should alleviate some of the problems. (17 seconds with typo correction, prior to edit of how long this took. :) ) | |
| Jan 17, 2010 at 12:49 | comment | added | Gnoupi | Note that changing to 25 seconds is a smart move. Now you can close all questions complaining about the 30 seconds as "no longer relevant" :-] | |
| Jan 17, 2010 at 9:34 | comment | added | Dominic Rodger | 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? ;) | |
| Jan 17, 2010 at 9:01 | comment | added | Jon Skeet | 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... | |
| Jan 17, 2010 at 8:23 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 107 characters in body; deleted 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 17, 2010 at 8:02 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | @jon that case you're almost CTRL+C CTRL+V-ing comment responses, which is not quite the typical use case. I'd also hope other users would be pointing out flaws with the answers in comments, and not you alone, making nearly identical comments on two or three different answers (which all have the same flaws, apparently?) in the same question. I'd hope there is a more distributed set of effort... I'd also propose that it's more sensible to point out flaws with one answer and leave the rest (find the similar flaws in other answers!) as an exercise for the readers. | |
| Jan 17, 2010 at 7:47 | comment | added | Jon Skeet | "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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 16:14 | comment | added | Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod | 'We don't run Stack Overflow. You do. Except when we don't agree with you, of course' | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 15:35 | comment | added | CJM | 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'. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 15:28 | comment | added | John Rudy | BTW, I ran the test, and I am apparently "amazingly speedy" by your definition. Of course, when typing without transcribing, just putting in our thoughts, many of us "amazingly speedy" typists are even faster. (EG, I burst up to 120/130wpm.) | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 14:17 | comment | added | John Rudy |
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.
|
|
| Jan 14, 2010 at 10:12 | comment | added | alex | Deleting a comment takes 0 seconds, yet it's treated as writing a new one. Why am I forced to wait 30 seconds? | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 8:45 | comment | added | Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 7:52 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | waiting 30 seconds before posting comment #2 -- really 15 seconds, if you're an extremely fast typer and have taken ZERO seconds since posting your last comment -- that is 'punishment'? It's no different than any of the other rate limits we have. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 7:36 | comment | added | Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 7:27 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | if you're writing a novella, it doesn't belong in the comments IMO | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 6:54 | comment | added | Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 6:51 | comment | added | Vinko Vrsalovic StaffMod | I take it you are a "disabling the button is confusing" team member. Because that's simpler and more effective than this tyrannical measure. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 6:47 | comment | added | Kyle Cronin | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 6:34 | comment | added | Jeff Atwood | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 5:12 | comment | added | Kyle Cronin | 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. | |
| Jan 14, 2010 at 4:46 | history | edited | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2010 at 4:40 | history | answered | Jeff Atwood | CC BY-SA 2.5 |