You are ineligible to post

September 18, 2006 7:05 PM

Idea: what if the "New Post" and "New Question" links vanish-or change to say "You are ineligible to post"-when you aren't eligible? That would eliminate a lot of the "Oh lemme ax metafilter about that." ...*click*... "Sweet Lady Marmalade! I can't yet!"

Then when you're allowed again they change back to normal.
posted by evariste to Feature Requests at 7:05 PM (60 comments total)

gitchee gitchee ya ya ta ta
posted by quonsar at 7:07 PM on September 18, 2006

Witchi tai to kimera bulrunico bulrunico.
posted by yhbc at 7:21 PM on September 18, 2006

Oh, this is going to end well.
posted by dg at 7:24 PM on September 18, 2006

Or they could just be styled to a duller, darker color. Like a seventy year old Californian.
posted by cortex at 7:27 PM on September 18, 2006

I think this is the first MeTa thread I've ever seen that had not one but two omninous invocations to gods or demons unknown.

*makes convoluted warding sign, waves pants-fish*

Strange genuflections aside, I like this idea.
posted by loquacious at 7:29 PM on September 18, 2006

I have an eel in my smock.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:31 PM on September 18, 2006

Or they could just be styled to a duller, darker color. Like a seventy year old Californian.

Isn't quonsar was purple or mauve or something lurid like that?
posted by loquacious at 7:31 PM on September 18, 2006

Voulez vous un poney ce soir?
posted by brain_drain at 7:33 PM on September 18, 2006

Isn't was is when was is isn't?
posted by loquacious at 7:35 PM on September 18, 2006

Why is a mouse when it spins?
posted by dersins at 7:38 PM on September 18, 2006

Why are there zebras?
posted by dg at 7:45 PM on September 18, 2006

Tom, when playing a game of scrabble against Dick who, whilst pondering the degree of legitimacy the last word that Harry (who had had 'had') had had had had, had had 'had', had had 'had'. Had 'had' had more letters, he would have played it again.
posted by Rhomboid at 7:46 PM on September 18, 2006 [2 favorites]

I suspect the problem with that is that it would require checking your posting rights on every single page display, rather than only when you actually click the button.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:48 PM on September 18, 2006

If this were to implemented, I would imagine we'd have a lot of "My post button is gone! Hope me!" threads.
posted by bob sarabia at 7:54 PM on September 18, 2006

Cthulhu! Fhtagn! Ia! Ia!
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:56 PM on September 18, 2006

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
posted by mendel at 7:59 PM on September 18, 2006

I can make funny noises too. Mnnnmmmm. Damnit, I suck at this.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:02 PM on September 18, 2006

Look--the redoubtable Plutor has written a Greasemonkey script that will tell you how long you have before you can post to AskMe. Something similar might exist or could be programmed for the Blue. (Or you could note what time you post to the Blue, and then wait until 24 hours past that time. Whatever works).
posted by Iridic at 8:05 PM on September 18, 2006

I hate Rhomboid.
posted by loquacious at 8:06 PM on September 18, 2006

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:11 PM on September 18, 2006

I'd have to check every logged in member's posting status on every view of the header, which is kind of nuts for one nice feature.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:17 PM on September 18, 2006

Couldn't it be rounded up so it only polls for rights status every 15 minutes or something? Maybe synchronized, so it just pushes that bit out to the logged in profile pageviews every x minutes?
posted by loquacious at 8:20 PM on September 18, 2006

Man, that came out more than a little snappish. Sorry, Evariste. Long, long day.
posted by Iridic at 8:20 PM on September 18, 2006

mathowie-I was thinking about that problem. Lots of database queries. What if instead of doing it that way, when we post a question, a cookie expiring in one week (3 days or whatever for the other sites) is written to our computers, and if that cookie exists on a MeFite's computer, he or she won't see the posting link? That would be pretty low-impact.

Iridic, no umbrage taken!
posted by evariste at 8:31 PM on September 18, 2006

She specifically requested the trout, you skeevy bastard.
posted by loquacious at 8:31 PM on September 18, 2006

Chaturga Tier Artoch! Wait, why are we making funny noises? This seemed like a pretty good idea (till Matt shot it down anyway.)
posted by quin at 8:40 PM on September 18, 2006

... if that cookie exists on a MeFite's computer, he or she won't see the posting link? That would be pretty low-impact.
You would have to factor in the "Why can't I see the post link on my work computer when I can see it on my laptop" MeTa threads every second week when calculating the impact.
posted by dg at 8:51 PM on September 18, 2006

Isn't this what sessions are for? You set a session when a user logs in: 'can_post' (y/n), for the blue, green and grey, along with the time they were checked. Then when the person loads a page, only perform another check if an hour (or whatever) has passed since the previous check.

And... uh.. Ich habe une tiburón que camina dans me ongemakkelijk strak ondergoed.
posted by MetaMonkey at 8:58 PM on September 18, 2006

I ran across this picture on the internet, and you folks being more clever than I, thought you might be able to have some fun with it. I'd been looking for somewhere to post it, and this thread looks like a good place.



Larger version here.
posted by marxchivist at 9:16 PM on September 18, 2006

If you're creating threads so often in various MeFi sections that you regularly get surprised by "you can't post yet" messages, you could probably benefit from a few "Sweet Lady Marmalade!" moments.
posted by mediareport at 9:17 PM on September 18, 2006

mediareport-I ask about 2 questions a month, and post about 1 MeTa thread a month-which is well fewer than the quota. I don't post on any of the other sites at all. And yet, I'm having frequent Sweet Lady Marmalade moments. I doubt I'm alone...
posted by evariste at 9:28 PM on September 18, 2006

I ask about 2 questions a month, and post about 1 MeTa thread a month-which is well fewer than the quota.
That "quota" is supposed to be an absolute maximum to stop people abusing the site. It's not meant to be a goal.
posted by dg at 9:31 PM on September 18, 2006

dg-I wasn't implying it was; I was only pointing out that I don't post all that frequently.
posted by evariste at 9:34 PM on September 18, 2006

Perhaps that is a matter of perspective. From where I sit, posting 2 questions a month and 1 MeTa thread a month is a lot. Obviously, YMVs.
posted by dg at 9:48 PM on September 18, 2006

You really have no reason for posting a thread in MetaTalk once a month.
posted by bob sarabia at 9:52 PM on September 18, 2006

Boomshakalaka! There, got one. Am I at quota?
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:54 PM on September 18, 2006

From where I sit, posting 2 questions a month and 1 MeTa thread a month is a lot.

You really have no reason for posting a thread in MetaTalk once a month.

Damn. The tribe has spoken.
posted by evariste at 9:56 PM on September 18, 2006

Please begin posting the pictures of the bunnies humping things.
posted by loquacious at 9:57 PM on September 18, 2006

I don't have any of those. How's this?





NSFW


posted by bob sarabia at 10:26 PM on September 18, 2006

Once again, bob sarabia ups the ante in the game of "WTF Is That?"
posted by brain_drain at 10:33 PM on September 18, 2006

posted by bob sarabia at 11:17 PM on September 18, 2006

posted by loquacious at 11:28 PM on September 18, 2006

loquacious == 0wndez.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:37 PM on September 18, 2006

Oh yeah? (NSFW or anyone. You've been warned.)
posted by loquacious at 11:41 PM on September 18, 2006

Oh yeah.











NSFW

NSFW

NSFW

NSFW


posted by bob sarabia at 12:11 AM on September 19, 2006

MEGAFAILGET
posted by loquacious at 12:18 AM on September 19, 2006

342875 GET
FAILED AGED GET
ONWZED


posted by bob sarabia at 12:28 AM on September 19, 2006

342875 FAILGET 3FOURTWO8SEVEN6
posted by loquacious at 12:31 AM on September 19, 2006

0WNZ j00
N0 OWNZ 4U < HUMPBUNNY PX!!
posted by loquacious at 12:33 AM on September 19, 2006

AGED OWNzED
posted by bob sarabia at 12:36 AM on September 19, 2006

hmm, the preview striped my big tags. That was supposed to look a lot more impressive than it is.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:37 AM on September 19, 2006

342881 GET!!!111!!!
posted by bob sarabia at 12:38 AM on September 19, 2006

MOAR HUMPINH BUNNTSZ1!!


posted by loquacious at 12:50 AM on September 19, 2006

posted by bob sarabia at 12:52 AM on September 19, 2006

I have no doubt you'll copy and repost those gifs, as usual, loquacious.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:58 AM on September 19, 2006

Nah, most of 'em don't fit in my collection. Well, the O BLAARRGGAG! one is nice, but I need more pics of bunnies humping things. I'm on a mission.
posted by loquacious at 1:09 AM on September 19, 2006

posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:25 AM on September 19, 2006

bunny hump
posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:26 AM on September 19, 2006

posted by sergeant sandwich at 1:28 AM on September 19, 2006

Wow this thread sucks ass.
posted by sveskemus at 2:29 AM on September 19, 2006