-13

I often daydream and spend the bulk of my day thinking about up various topics.

Once I have digested these topics into good quality questions I would like to, in one burst, ask perhaps three different questions on three totally different sites of the Stack Exchange network.

I'm running into troubles with the 40 minute timer which is preventing me from carrying out this habit. Now I understand that, we do want to prevent network overload, but it seems to me the timer should be constrained to a single site (i.e., don't post back to back on a single site with a 40 minute gap). It seems strange that the network assumes "it's not practical for you to have a sports question and a quantum computing question in under a 40 minute span".

I propose: removing the timer entirely for users that have achieved > some threshold (maybe 1k maybe 5k) reputation, and instead of counting questions across the network, enforce a timer for low rep users only for back to back questions on the same site.

At least one other person has ran into this problem see here: Why is the 1 question per 40 minutes limit enforced ACROSS different sites?

But the proposed solution doesn't help since if the user asks on a new site they have to deal with the timer again. If you explore their profile you will find they often engage with very many new sites. Which is exactly the problem I'm also dealing with. I think in general if N = 2 then N > 2, that is if I'm having this problem and one other person is having it then chances are there is a nontrivial number of people facing this problem.

11
  • No, it doesn't answer the question. It's related to resetting timers for deleted questions. Sep 26 at 3:24
  • 11
    Such limits aren't in place with the intent of limiting legitimate posting. The limits are there to prevent abuse. While I might be in favor of some lessening of the current limits, your full proposed feature change opens the network up to anyone spamming the network to rapid-fire post 200+ questions. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a proposal that does a better job of A) continuing the legitimate protection of the network which is the primary intent behind such limits, while B) melding in a lessening of the limitations to meet your desired use case.
    – Makyen
    Sep 26 at 4:25
  • 3
    'I would like to, in one burst, ask perhaps 3 different questions on 3 totally different parts of the Stack Exchange network'....that is....unusual and, I suspect, unique. I don't see a cost/benefit analysis coming out in favour:( Sep 26 at 4:33
  • @Makyen Surely any user reaching a network wide total rep threshold of say 5k+ would have too much to lose for flooding the network with bad questions. And rate limits could still be enforced “no more than 1 question per second”. Combining high rep + fast-for-human-slow-for-computer rate limits definitely prevents the network from real flooding. Sep 26 at 4:35
  • @MartinJames it might be unusual but it’s common enough that someone else who I linked in the post also thought almost the same way. And that user and I have arrived at this behavior for totally different reasons which suggests to me at least that it’s more common than what the public might initially believe Sep 26 at 4:37
  • 6
    Your proposal is not just for high rep users. Your feature change proposal says "... and instead of counting questions across the network, enforce a timer for low rep users only for back to back questions on the SAME forum". As I said, I might support some changes, but "your full proposed feature change opens the network up to anyone spamming the network to rapid-fire post 200+ questions." There are 170+ SE sites. A significant number of sites (I haven't checked #) allow posting on the meta site with no reputation limit, if the user has a question on the main site, so in the 200 ballpark.
    – Makyen
    Sep 26 at 4:44
  • 6
    @frogeyedpeas Limits in the N per second range are what's used for relatively minor activities. Posting a question is not a minor action. Even mentioning posting 1 question per second as a proposed rate limit implies that you're not even trying to look at this from the point of view of what's good for the network. Go back to the drawing board. Put more time into thinking through your proposal such that you start with proposing something that at least appears to take into account the needs/desires of the various stakeholders.
    – Makyen
    Sep 26 at 4:53
  • 5
    As an additional note - why do you think reduced throttling should be tied to reputation? There is little correlation between trustworthiness and rep (despite the system claiming there is one). This would allow some very high-rep users who already cause trouble by answering anything that moves at a rate of a machine gun to post even faster. The proposal seems to open more possibilities of abuse on both sides of the proposed threshold while not providing any clear benefits apart that it will make life easier for the OP personally. Sep 26 at 5:17
  • If we remove the timer based on reputation I propose we use the 30K slot that has been waiting for 6 years to get implemented. Enjoy your new privilege!
    – rene
    Sep 26 at 6:15
  • Does this answer your question? The Complete Rate-Limiting Guide links to meta.stackoverflow.com/a/322265/3648282 on Stack Overflow, in the appropriate section: "Asking" or "Answering" - there are additional limits that can take effect too: meta.stackexchange.com/help/asking-rate-limited
    – Rob
    Sep 26 at 19:41
  • @Makyen ok that’s a strong argument for preventing new users from side stepping the rate limit even across different sites. I’ll concede this much. I still stand by the belief there is SOME level of total network reputation at which point a user can be trusted to cross post under the 40 minute timer even in new forums. Sep 26 at 19:53
18

I'm a high rep user. Unless I write out my questions first and copy-paste them, I'm sure the average question takes me at least 15-20 minutes to write or more. I can't think of any reason why I can't spend the time to polish my question. I'd look askance at any need to rapidly ask multiple questions in a short time.

In addition - as per another question on a similar issue and the rate limiting guide - the rate limit dosen't exist at 125 reputation. Association gives you 101 reputation - so essentially you need 25 reputation - which 3 upvotes, 13 suggested edits or any suitable combination of those and other reputation generating activities would give. I think quite a lot of the time 25 rep is basically one post's reputation for me.

Its meant to be an 'easy' hurdle to cross given engagement, and using your experience of the SE system to ease the work of getting reputation. The minimum requirement shows you get the site - as opposed to just you get the system.

3
  • 2
    One thing is that even if you have 125 rep on a site, questions you post on that site will still count toward the rate limit on sites where you don't. I think this is one thing that should be removed, given that posting the same two questions in the reverse order isn't limited. Sep 26 at 5:49
  • I think that's covered by the last paragraph
    – Journeyman Geek Mod
    Sep 26 at 6:00
  • 3
    Doesn't really address why I should be allowed to ask a question on a site where I have 100 rep and then ask another on a site where I have 125+ rep immediately, but should be required to wait 40 minutes or earn 25 rep if I want to ask the questions in the reverse order. Sep 26 at 6:08

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