Possible Duplicate:
Comments that fail to post start the “You can only comment every 5 seconds” timer

This is a recent bug, if you write less than 15 characters, you trigger the 30 second spam protection.

You can try this by writing a short comment, try to hit send, and then fill it with enough characters and try hitting send again.

  • 31
    This should not be "status-bydesign"; it's clearly broken. "status-wontfix" would be more honest.
    – Ether
    Commented Nov 6, 2009 at 7:13
  • Completely agree, the trigger should be active only after all other validation, just when the comment is to be successfully saved. This is really annoying. This applies to any type of comment saving error: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/109348/…
    – Tomas
    Commented Oct 14, 2011 at 22:52
  • This is now fixed.
    – user154510
    Commented Nov 22, 2011 at 5:28
  • FYI original question this duplicates is here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/103037/…
    – Lisa
    Commented Dec 12, 2011 at 0:33

3 Answers 3


In that case, shouldn't you then inform the user to wait 25 seconds after the initial failure?

Otherwise you have to wait 25 seconds from the second failure, making the wait time more like 45 seconds, and thus punishing the user for something that they may not have known about.


It appears that this has been fixed at least here on Meta. Short comments no longer trigger this; instead the "X more to go" message flashes. It's possible to post the comment immediately after such a flash.

That's one less annoying misfeature, neat!


Probably tagged [status-bydesign] because when you send through your attempt, that starts the counter.

Doesn't matter if your comment doesn't meet the 15 character minimum, it still set off the initial ticker.

And you'd have to wait because they'd otherwise have to check to see if the comment was inserted into the database as to whether or not to actually reset or continue the countdown timer.

  • 8
    Couldn't this just have been a comment? Commented Sep 27, 2009 at 14:25
  • 1
    Not with that kind of linking.
    – random
    Commented Sep 27, 2009 at 14:27
  • 1
    High tech stuff right there. Commented Sep 27, 2009 at 14:29
  • TITLE is the highest low end tech of an anchor tag yet.
    – random
    Commented Sep 27, 2009 at 14:38
  • What anchor library are you using? Commented Sep 27, 2009 at 14:40
  • HTML 2.0, remains of the day.
    – random
    Commented Sep 27, 2009 at 22:46
  • 6
    Except that this time it's a real bug and not a Trim() issue :) Commented Sep 28, 2009 at 9:18

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