My original suggestion was: Change the minimum character limit for comments to an “Are you sure” instead of a requirement - similar to the minimum for question titles.

I think that Sid Meier had a good idea: "new users can't post short comments, intermediate users can post short comments but are asked if they're sure, and advanced users can post short comments without any prompts"

I think that we should make sure we tell the new users why they can't post short comments (so they learn) and also tell them that higher reputation will remove the restrictions.

Also please do not make any more comments on this question that just prove the system can be tricked.

Edit: Looks like we better make sure we don't let the high rep users forget the reason that they were blocked from short comments to begin with

Edit: Oh Well It looks like this idea is not going very good. Perhaps you should still upvote my question if you want the limit changed... and this question: Can we get rid of the threshold of 15 chars for comments?

  • +1 even though this is doomed. – user27414 Oct 26 '10 at 17:02
  • 1
    Just what kind of comments under 15 characters do you want to post? – Welbog Oct 26 '10 at 17:12
  • I am not trying to answer that question. I just wanted to put up a compromise suggestion about the are you sure and see how it gets voted. There are two ups and two downs so far. – 700 Software Oct 26 '10 at 17:14
  • 8
    You know what? I've changed my mind. I'm with you on this suggestion. Hard limits are stupid. So let's go with a slightly different but similar suggestion: new users can't post short comments, intermediate users can post short comments but are asked if they're sure, and advanced users can post short comments without any prompts. That way we keep the noise comments (e.g. "thx") out with a hard limit until users have been around long enough to know that such comments are unwelcome. Then you only have the soft limit for when a short comment really is necessary. – Welbog Oct 26 '10 at 17:18
  • 2
    Are you really sure? – Uphill Luge Oct 26 '10 at 17:33
  • 1
    I'm declining the compromise idea ... the restriction removal is already covered here: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/700/… .. I am not against improving the warnings – waffles Oct 28 '10 at 1:37
  • 5
    Personally I loathe the 15 seconds; timer reset. 15 seconds; timer reset thing far more than the 15 character limit. – user102937 Oct 28 '10 at 2:17
  • Y @jam⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ – Gnome Oct 28 '10 at 2:40

I'm not buying the whole users with 1000 rep should be allowed to post short comments argument. I do not consider it a privilege to post short comments. A lot of the short comment abuse was coming from high rep users anyway.

If you want to type Yes No and OK, well we have chat for that.

I am not against improving our UI so it clarifies stuff better, perhaps a ? linked to https://meta.stackoverflow.com/privileges/comment when you try to submit a short comment or something like it.

  • 3
    Waffles, how do you suggest someone respond when asked a yes-or-no question in a comment? There are legitimate non-spam reasons to post short comments. A comment's value is not a function of its length. The 15-character limit is arbitrary and meaningless. It accomplishes a goal: removing short, noisy comments. It does not remove long, noisy comments and is disallows short, meaningful comments. High-rep users are unlikely to post "thanks" or "lol" because they know the culture of SO. New users still need the limiter in place to help them learn it, but the restriction is arbitrary and wrong. – Welbog Oct 27 '10 at 11:21
  • 1
    Yea, what do you suggest? And I don't expect to post my question's on chat just because I might get a Yes/No question. We can't stop the abuse by a character limit. There are other buttons or warnings that at least give the decision to a human. – 700 Software Oct 27 '10 at 12:31
  • @Sid , @cjavapro This question appears to be about a compromise ... not meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/700/… ... I am strongly against a compromise that unlocks the ability for short comments for high rep users. It does not make sense to me. – waffles Oct 28 '10 at 1:32
  • It's scientific fact that comment quality is unrelated to length. Therefore it's scientific fact that restricting comment length in an effort to improve quality doesn't make any sense. Therefore it's scientific fact that you're wrong. – Welbog Oct 28 '10 at 3:19
  • @Sid ... that is a separate issue all together ... and its the other feature Jeff declined ages ago. – waffles Oct 28 '10 at 3:21
  • Jeff was wrong then and he's still wrong. Siding with someone whom science can prove is wrong is wrong. – Welbog Oct 28 '10 at 3:24
  • 1
    So, you guys trust me to close and delete questions, edit any post on the site and even move questions to other sites, but I cannot add the occasional "what?" comment? – Kobi Oct 28 '10 at 5:20
  • @Kobi ... this whole post has been derailed by @Sid and co. It is dealing with the concept of giving special "short comment privs" to users, because people are upset about meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/700/… being declined. I am strongly against having "short comments" as a priv, its either everyone can have ultra short comments or no one. – waffles Oct 28 '10 at 5:24
  • And the short comment discussion is covered there ... personally ... I don't see what the big fuss is ... its a restriction ... at times it can be annoying but overall it does not cause too much pain – waffles Oct 28 '10 at 5:27
  • Just replace the "15 more to go" with. Please avoid meaningless comments like lol, etc.. and then when they hit 15 you can make it go away.. – 700 Software Oct 28 '10 at 12:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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