Often times a user will ask a series of questions that get closed, one right after the other. They will often ask these over the course of the same day, sometimes they'll even ask all 6 of their daily allotment of questions, only to have them closed, one right after the other.

Right now, other than a moderator flag there is little notification that this behavior is ongoing.

Question closure like this is often transparent to a novice user and there is little indication that they need to slow down and stop. Sometimes, the first notice that they receive that something is wrong is a moderator comment, other times it might be a moderator message accompanied by a week long suspension (I've had at least two cases on a site I moderate where this happened).

Users need a more effective braking system that will help them slow down and think about what they are doing.

I propose modifying the existing rate limits on questions/day or questions/month to slow or stop people who ask multiple closed questions in short order.

This solution will ease moderator load by helping the folks who ask these questions to self diagnose what is wrong with them (or get help), and it may overall limit the number of folks who run into question bans on larger sites by slowing the number of questions they can ask and helping them focus on fewer, better questions.

At the very least, it might slow the influx of cruft into larger sites by more quickly limiting the number of questions a user who is having trouble catching on to the system may ask.

  • 1
    Do you propose there be some kind of extra notice, or the same rate-limit pop-up that already exists? – jscs Dec 10 '13 at 19:39
  • @JoshCaswell absolutely. My proposal would be similar to the current messaging when a user has a couple of flags denied and is warned that they may flag again soon. – wax eagle Dec 10 '13 at 19:45
  • Such a mechanism is already in place. It won't work if users don't vote for the question. – Uphill Luge Dec 10 '13 at 21:11
  • 5
    @UphillLuge What do you mean that it's already in place? What we have currently is a flag, a few of the largest sites have some quality bans that are difficult to recover from. This is a direct contrast to that in that it's a rate limit rather than a ban, and is intended as a supplement to the exisisting quality bans. – wax eagle Dec 10 '13 at 22:32