24 hours vs. a day. October 23, 2001 5:09 AM Subscribe
24 hours vs. a day. I really don't like the 24 hour limitation, its not that I want to post twice per day, but I keep odd hours and find some really interesting stuff say in the morning that I'd like to post, but have to wait 24 actualy hours because I posted in the afternoon the previous day.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
• If someone beats you to the punch on this particular link, that's not bad (this isn't a competition).
• If no one beats you to it, and if you still feel like posting it tomorrow, maybe it wasn't just another CNN link.
• If it's an emergency, try buying an ad.
posted by pracowity at 6:11 AM on October 23, 2001
• If no one beats you to it, and if you still feel like posting it tomorrow, maybe it wasn't just another CNN link.
• If it's an emergency, try buying an ad.
posted by pracowity at 6:11 AM on October 23, 2001
The ad suggestion was a joke. There's no such thing as an emergency posting.
And I think many people do (though perhaps you do not) feel as if they're competing. They have to be first because no one is allowed to be second, and they have to be funny (or profound or cool or übergeek or most informed) because little else matters. Every posting is an advertisement for a little chunk of someone's ego.
posted by pracowity at 6:47 AM on October 23, 2001
And I think many people do (though perhaps you do not) feel as if they're competing. They have to be first because no one is allowed to be second, and they have to be funny (or profound or cool or übergeek or most informed) because little else matters. Every posting is an advertisement for a little chunk of someone's ego.
posted by pracowity at 6:47 AM on October 23, 2001
its not that I want to post twice per day
this is the key element. Skallas is just saying that the "day" could be better defined. That makes sense. After all, a 24-hour prohibition is much stronger than a 1-a-day restriction (e.g., to post 365 links in a year with the first, you would have to post exactly every 24 hours; whereas with the second you could post at any time of day, so long as you didn't skip a day).
I rarely post to the main page, so it doesn't matter to me all that much. But I see skallas' point, and it sounds reasonable to me. As I understand it, the posting restriction was about stopping people from racking up front-page post after front-page post, not to make them sit on posts their going to make anyway (once they're permitted again).
posted by mattpfeff at 7:18 AM on October 23, 2001
this is the key element. Skallas is just saying that the "day" could be better defined. That makes sense. After all, a 24-hour prohibition is much stronger than a 1-a-day restriction (e.g., to post 365 links in a year with the first, you would have to post exactly every 24 hours; whereas with the second you could post at any time of day, so long as you didn't skip a day).
I rarely post to the main page, so it doesn't matter to me all that much. But I see skallas' point, and it sounds reasonable to me. As I understand it, the posting restriction was about stopping people from racking up front-page post after front-page post, not to make them sit on posts their going to make anyway (once they're permitted again).
posted by mattpfeff at 7:18 AM on October 23, 2001
skallas, i don't see your dilemma. if you're afraid of forgetting your post after waiting too long, do as i do: send yourself an email with all the necessary info typed in. then you can simply cut and paste it in.
posted by moz at 8:08 AM on October 23, 2001
posted by moz at 8:08 AM on October 23, 2001
"I rarely post to the main page"
Which is the way it ought to be. (IMHO)
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:22 AM on October 23, 2001
Which is the way it ought to be. (IMHO)
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:22 AM on October 23, 2001
I'll try and not take that personally, 3(y6)....
;)
Seriously, there is a (legitimate) question of intent (of the rule) here. I'd be fine with a rule that restricted posting to 1x/week, myself. But that's not the rule. And given that it's supposed to be 1x/day, it's reasonable to ask what's the best way to do that (and why).
posted by mattpfeff at 8:46 AM on October 23, 2001
;)
Seriously, there is a (legitimate) question of intent (of the rule) here. I'd be fine with a rule that restricted posting to 1x/week, myself. But that's not the rule. And given that it's supposed to be 1x/day, it's reasonable to ask what's the best way to do that (and why).
posted by mattpfeff at 8:46 AM on October 23, 2001
I think it comes down to the complexity of the coding involved. I agree with skallas that once/day should be the rule, but if it's going to but additional burden on Uncle Matt, it's not really worth it.
posted by jpoulos at 9:10 AM on October 23, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 9:10 AM on October 23, 2001
If my memory serves me right, this difference was actually debated before the change was made, and the decision was made to make it 24 hours rather than day-by-day.
Honestly, it's not a big deal, either; if you feel it's important enough, you'll remember to post it once the 24-hour embargo ends. If it's not, you won't. And there probably is no link out there that, if not posted, will cause the world to end, so this is all a little bit of tilting at windmills; if someone really disagrees with the way it's set up, then there are other sites that they can use to post the link (including their own weblogs).
posted by delfuego at 9:16 AM on October 23, 2001
Honestly, it's not a big deal, either; if you feel it's important enough, you'll remember to post it once the 24-hour embargo ends. If it's not, you won't. And there probably is no link out there that, if not posted, will cause the world to end, so this is all a little bit of tilting at windmills; if someone really disagrees with the way it's set up, then there are other sites that they can use to post the link (including their own weblogs).
posted by delfuego at 9:16 AM on October 23, 2001
The 24-hour rule was instigated to try and stop a problem. it's neither selective nor can it filter out double posts, crap posts or trolls.
But it's a better solution to the situation we had a couple of weeks ago than any I can think of, and it makes everyone think about what they post which is a Good Thing.
It's not very egalitarian to suggest that you should get special dispensation to break the rules because you keep odd hours, 24 hours is still a day whenever you start it.
posted by Markb at 9:47 AM on October 23, 2001
But it's a better solution to the situation we had a couple of weeks ago than any I can think of, and it makes everyone think about what they post which is a Good Thing.
It's not very egalitarian to suggest that you should get special dispensation to break the rules because you keep odd hours, 24 hours is still a day whenever you start it.
posted by Markb at 9:47 AM on October 23, 2001
We should be able to save up all our hours, and blow them all on a post-fest.
I suggest this for reasons that can only be described as bastardly.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:04 AM on October 23, 2001
I suggest this for reasons that can only be described as bastardly.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:04 AM on October 23, 2001
The day by day was kicked in favor of 24 hours, due to australian and european members that don't want to wait until exactly 6pm or 8am to make their next day posts, due to the midnight on the west coast of the US thing.
skallas, you're about the only person with the problem. You continue to post good links, and you have a knack for finding lots of them. The rule was obviously made for people that don't know how to find good links or write good posts.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:05 AM on October 23, 2001
skallas, you're about the only person with the problem. You continue to post good links, and you have a knack for finding lots of them. The rule was obviously made for people that don't know how to find good links or write good posts.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:05 AM on October 23, 2001
When did this quota thing kick in? I submitted several little posts yesterday without problem.
Also, couldn't the system just be used at peak demand times?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:27 AM on October 23, 2001
Also, couldn't the system just be used at peak demand times?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:27 AM on October 23, 2001
"I'll try and not take that personally, 3(y6)...."
Oops. Yes. That sounded bad. Sorry. I was speaking in the general sense.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:36 AM on October 23, 2001
Oops. Yes. That sounded bad. Sorry. I was speaking in the general sense.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:36 AM on October 23, 2001
When did this quota thing kick in? I submitted several little posts yesterday without problem
The limit is only on front page posts. So users can only start 1 new thread per 24 hr period. You can comment all you want.
Also, couldn't the system just be used at peak demand times?
It's not an issue about server load, it was done for quality control (people with new found posting rights were happily posting 3 links in a row, each day).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:43 AM on October 23, 2001
The limit is only on front page posts. So users can only start 1 new thread per 24 hr period. You can comment all you want.
Also, couldn't the system just be used at peak demand times?
It's not an issue about server load, it was done for quality control (people with new found posting rights were happily posting 3 links in a row, each day).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:43 AM on October 23, 2001
« Older Customization preferences not consistent across... | kuro5hin is serious, mefi is fun Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Yes, that's the idea. More waiting, less posting, more thinking about quality choices.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:58 AM on October 23, 2001