Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Here are the two questions: (10k only - since both are now deleted)

The titles are exactly the same - down to the letter. They were also posted two minutes apart.

How did this user get past both the duplicate title filter and the 20 minute question rate limit?

share|improve this question
Christmas miracle? – Adam Rackis Dec 14 '12 at 16:54
They're deleted now, so perhaps we will never know. Are you sure they were both from the same account? – Sam I am Dec 14 '12 at 18:05
@SamIam 10ks, mods, and developers can see deleted posts. And of course you'd need a developer to fix it anyways. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 18:06
@SamIam Same account. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 14 '12 at 18:07
He posted, deleted, then reposted? – Cole Johnson Dec 14 '12 at 18:58
@ColeJohnson Nope. I see no deletions in the revision histories other than the most recent ones that came after I linked them here. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 18:59
@Mysticial Is there a rep limit on seeing the revision history for a deleted post? – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 14 '12 at 19:08
Yes, you still need 10k to see revisions. But neither of them are interesting. For both of them, the OP posts the question, it gets closed and then deleted - presumably by people pouring in from meta. For the second one, the Community user adds the duplicate link. But otherwise, that's it. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 19:11
I've seen hiccups twice or thrice where the system somehow does a double-submit on the user's behalf. The posters had no idea that it had happened -- they just hit the "Post your question" button once. /cc @Asad – Josh Caswell Dec 14 '12 at 19:27
But they were 2 minutes apart, and the contents of the posts are not identical. (not saying the OP couldn't have ninja edited though) – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 19:30
@Mysticial: I don't recall the exact time spread of the earlier hiccups I've seen, but I believe there were a few minutes between. I can't find the relevant previous Meta question although I think one exists. – Josh Caswell Dec 14 '12 at 19:37
@Mysticial It is interesting that he posted the copy before his question was closed. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 14 '12 at 19:38
@Asad I suppose he posted the second one with more information in response to the comments on the first one. Of course neither version was a good question, so they both got nuked. But of course is why the server allowed it in the first place. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 19:41

The secret might be that the OP added a trailing . or some such character which allowed the question to go through, but was stripped from the title automatically. I haven't tested it so far, but this comment indicates the presence of this behavior at least as far back as September '11.

To elaborate, there is an unrelated automatic ASCII-fication of the title that occurs when you submit your question. From what Marc says here, I assume the dupe check occurs on the title as it stands before the removal of characters, so you can add a bunch of garbage characters to make your title temporarily unique.

Needless to say, this is a bug.

share|improve this answer
But this doesn't explain the 20 minute rate limit. So there's definitely a lot more going on here. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 18:44
@Mysticial I'll try to find it, but I remember someone saying the timestamp for a question is derived from the time on the person's machine. It was on a question about an answer being posted before the question, if you've seen it. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 14 '12 at 18:49
That's not possible because the rate-limit is done by ip address. So it has to be enforced on the server-end. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 18:50
@Mysticial Do you think they might have forgotten to enforce account based throttling as well? A user could just use a VPN to get around it otherwise. – Asad Saeeduddin Dec 14 '12 at 18:59
That's certainly possible. But we'd need a dev to confirm that. And even then, it's a loop-hole that may or may not be worth fixing. – Mysticial Dec 14 '12 at 19:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .