4

New users are limited to one question per an hour, but once they'll hit this limit, all they see is You can only post once every 60 minutes. I think it would be very appreciate to change / extend this message, adding You need to wait next xx minutes. I saw similar solutions on many forums.

Would it be hard to implement something like that?

EDIT: It could be either added as extension to above mentioned warning message or as red-colored reminder above Title field. Or even as an explanation message, preventing user from clicking on a Ask Question button? Anything would be good, to not let user write the question (can be time consuming) only to hit the wall of limit. This can be a little bit annoying or frustrating, don't you think?

  • 6
    This makes me want to hit both ▲ and ▼ . ▲ because I don't like to wait without a clue, and ▼ because I don't think making it easier for users to ask questions on maximum rate available is a good idea. – Mołot Jan 15 '14 at 11:05
  • 2
    @Mołot But I'm not talking about maximum rates here (60 minutes is fine) only on making a little bit more user-friendly UX on SE. Anyway, as I said, I seen this incorporated into many forums, it was really good thing, and that forums mods hasn't got doubts similar to yours! :> – trejder Jan 15 '14 at 11:08
  • I meant now it's like "An hour... maybe I should try on my own?" and after your changes it can be "I can post in 5 minutes! I'll wait! Why to go looking, it's only 5 minutes!". I don't know if it would look like that, but I am afraid it will. – Mołot Jan 15 '14 at 11:15
  • It is your point of view. Mine is different. I think, that not telling user, how long he or she has to wait, won't encourage him or her to somewhere else. He or she will just wait, trying and trying to hit the button. This may lead to frustration and brings wrong / incorrect picture of Stack Exchange. That's my opinion. – trejder Jan 15 '14 at 12:28
  • 4
    The way SO displays time periods, it would just say "You can post again in 1 hour" continuously until the hour was up anyway :P – Wooble Jan 15 '14 at 12:41
  • 2
    I agree it's not good UX, but if someone frequently hits the rate limit, they are doing something wrong in their learning process and should take time out to reflect. – Pekka supports GoFundMonica Jan 15 '14 at 14:46
  • I don't know what you guys are talking about, I've recently added two questions within half an hour in Physics – Mhmd Jan 15 '14 at 14:59
  • @user689 Your profile on Physics shows three questions, and none of them are within an hour of each other. – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Jan 15 '14 at 15:12
  • @AdamDavis sorry I meant Mathematics, but now after the edit I guess I know what he meant: new users.) – Mhmd Jan 15 '14 at 16:35
6

They have enough information to determine the exact time they can post again if they need it. All it requires is the existing message, You can only post once every 60 minutes and access to their user page, which will tell them when their last post was made.

When they receive the message all they need to do is look at a clock and wait 60 minutes. It may be that they can post sooner than that, but do they need to?

If someone wants to post more frequently than every hour, as a new user, chances are good they aren't really putting much effort in anyway.

So:

  1. They can determine the time exactly if it's necessary
  2. It's not necessary to do so if you simply wait 60 minutes as the message suggests
  3. It's unlikely that they're putting in so much effort in that time frame that the next question will be a good question anyway, so trying to shorten the 70-100 minutes to exactly 60 minutes probably isn't useful to us or them

Lastly, while your suggestion may improve the user experience better for some certain types of users, you don't explain how it will improve the overall quality of the site. Will it improve questions? Answers?

  • 1
    Besides which, they probably know about how long ago they posted their last question. It was under an hour ago! Do we really need to treat them like children? – Adam Davis 'ze-zir-zem' Jan 15 '14 at 15:23
  • This answer and most comments suggest, that my point of view and thinking are wrong. What I can say, to end this discussion, is that fine, I agree with you. Although this is another (one of many, maybe to many) examples, how SE is or wants to be exeptional. As I said in the beginning, I've seen and been using MANY different forums and communities, which admins doesn't see your arguments and gives new users a clear message "You have to wait XX minutes before next post". But, that is my personal opinion. End of discussion, as for me. Thank you for all the participation. – trejder Jan 15 '14 at 21:27
1

I think that showing users how long they need to wait to ask a new question is a good idea for a few reasons.


Consistency with other rate-limit notifications

You may add another comment in 24 seconds

According to The Complete Rate-Limiting Guide, nearly every rate-limit notification lets the user know how long they've been restricted from a specific action.

Time-specific notifications are shown for voting, comments, flagging, chat bookmarks, and accepting answers. I don't see a reason to exclude them for asking questions.


Rate-limiting applies network-wide

With permission from site moderators(Workplace, Academia, ELU, Arduino, Code Golf), I have been posting meta-questions across multiple sites to test if YouTube embedding was enabled.

I initially came across the rate-limit while trying to test Android Enthusiasts. When I hit the limit, I checked my userpage as per Adam's advice, but my only question on the site was from over a month ago.

Later I realized that my rate-limit was from a post I had made 30 minutes ago on Arduino.

Fun fact: Stack Exchange gets very suspicious when cross-posting a question with multiple external URLs and HTML tags across multiple sites in a short timespan.


It's convenient

As Adam noted, if a user really needs to know how long they need to wait again, they can simply look at their user profile.

If that's the case, showing how long users need to wait isn't giving away any information they wouldn't already have access to. It's simply making the information a bit more conveniently accessible.


TL;DR: While this isn't a critical feature by any means, it would be a nice quality of life improvement. I don't see any reason not to add it.

You must log in to answer this question.

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