Rate Limit Rationale
Undisclosed limit, applies to IP addresses
Applies to the entire network; if one makes too many requests on one or more sites, access to all network sites is restricted
Does not apply to non-load-balanced services not served from the same network as public Q&A (chat, the API, etc.)
Should not be triggered during ...
You start with 10 flags per day.
Based on your reputation and flagging history, you can end up with as many as 100 per day.
Currently, that means you get an extra flag per day for every 2000 reputation points or 10 net helpful flags (helpful-declined).
Since you have an insane number of helpful flags, you're maxed out at 100 per day.
I explained it to a degree in the answer that I left here. I'm not certain if you realize how much depth your question has, and my apologies in advance for throwing a rather big wall of text as an answer to it.
It's important to clarify, we're improving question blocks substantially. There's some distinct groups of users that they affect, sorted by some ...
As of a few seconds ago, this limit is now active network-wide:
at-most 20 pending suggested edits per editor on beta sites
at-most 5 pending suggested edits per editor on graduated sites
These limits are based on my analysis of the speed at which edits are generally approved and the number of edits (and editors) that would have been affected over the past ...
Comment (and comment-voting) rate-limiting is one of the most irritating features on these sites and there are many requests to fix it, here's one.
Not everyone can time 15-seconds in their head well, and the big irritant is that once you get the message the timer reboots itself. So you get to sit there trying to time it again; it's like a game, but not a ...
The Close Vote Review has been ever growing for as long as the review has been on the site. The problem isn't lack of awareness or lack of a long line of suggested solutions, the problem is a lack of implementation of suggested solutions.
Here are some of the suggested solutions:
Let me choose when I use my close votes
Let close voting from the review page ...
Question blocks worked well enough at the scale that they were introduced. Those that could be helped were able to get out from under them, those that couldn't generally just left. They're not working very well today.
Because they're so difficult to get out from underneath (voting is much heavier these days), people find it easier to just request account ...
I don't think any such limit is needed. According to the answer here: How does comment voting and flagging work? there is already a limit:
You get 30 comment upvotes per day
If the comment upvoting was unlimited, it would be very reasonable to limit the number of votes via limiting the rate the comments can be upvoted. However, with this limit, I see ...
Oh yes this is incredibly annoying!
There cannot be a reasonable argument for the auto-reset. I type and think quickly, and I multi-task. What begins as a reasonably quick comment job on a few answers on the same question (or even on different question on different tabs) becomes an arduous cat-and-mouse game with the SO interface.
And why? Because the ...
As Jeff notes,
We really want vote diversity here, so that's the point of the limits
The limits in place are currently determined in two ways:
Per-queue hard limits: after 20 reviews in a given queue*, you're done for the day - if you want to continue reviewing, you can switch to a different queue.
Queue-specific limits on actions: certain actions are ...
Shog9, Tim Post, and I met earlier today to discuss the issues with the close queue and we all agree that we need to take some steps towards making it more manageable and, more importantly, more reliable and useful than it is today.
Unfortunately, there isn't just one thing that we could do that'd obviously solve all of our problems, and there are some ...
One question per post and yes, you have to wait.
If you ask more than one question per post, how are answerers (and the community at large) supposed to handle it?
What if they only have an answer to one question, but not the other? Should they answer it and not address both, or should they not answer because they can't answer both? That would deprive ...
I just want to take this opportunity to make sure everyone knows about the close vote review filter tool. It makes blowing through 40 reviews pretty quick and easy, so it's one of my favorite new features of the past year. I'll often filter reviews on problem tags like facebook or android, or on a tag that someone brings up for burnination here on Meta. ...
Bill is a moderator and likes to use /review as a tool for moderation. Bill gets an unlimited number of close votes, because he's a moderator.
Bill's use of /review for moderation tasks has prompted us to create a special interface for moderators there, which we hope to have available in probably six to eight weeks. It just naturally lends itself to ...
As a moderator I would rather see atomic flag groups -- a way to indicate that several comments are part of the same "incident", with mods able to handle them together. (This is what you suggest in your last bullet.)
Flagging comments individually is tedious for the flagger, as noted in this question. Flagging the post when not all comments should be ...
If a low-reputation user is speeding, sometimes, once banned, he continues to ask questions belonging to the main site on meta. Maybe add a notice warning not to ask questions belonging to main if he was banned on main?
The system is also pretty smart, and takes the following things into
How many substantive edits you've made to ...
The limit is not just there to prevent crap reviewers from flooding the system. It's there to give everyone a chance to review.
If a number of people have unlimited reviews in a day, noone else gets to have a look-in, and that's not fair.
And crap reviewers make it to 1k reviews faster than those that take reviewing seriously. It's easier to hit 'Looks ...
I would suggest the number of edits permited should be 5 + floor((number of posts)/100).
This will address the account vandalism problem as only one hundredth of posts may be edited. And also permits to very active users to edit more, proportional with their activity.
(And is simple to code/understand it.)
Oded implemented this earlier today. Right now, the default rate-limits apply to new users on every site (where "new user" is defined in a way that requires some nominal participation on that site), forcing a waiting period between posting a question or answer after having previously posted one anywhere else on the network.
These are not particularly ...
Why it bothers me? Sometimes I read a comment that is a good question, and, since it IS a good question, I want to read the next comment right away because now I'm dying of curiosity! Now, I'm satisfied, both a good question and a good answer, I want to upvote both!
A good solution that will prevent us being annoyed and abusers from ...abusing: Allow 3 ...
It's to prevent rage-quits.
There have been multiple cases of people rage-quitting by deleting or vandalizing their own posts.
So the simple solution is to rate-limit it. Anyone who deletes or edits 5 of their own old posts in a single day will be blocked and then automatically flagged for moderator attention.
As Bart stated in the comments, the main problem is that suggested edits are accepted too easily. Which bringst us to another point of attention: what suggested edits should be accepted? In my opinion these suggestions should be accepted:
Fixed indentation substantially
Fixed formatting substantially
Fixed a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes
Fixed obvious ...
There are 2 main problems that I see that would be resolved by rate-limiting of some fashion:
As mentioned, this would prevent someone flooding the review queue
The second is someone repeatedly making the same minor edit for a large number of posts.
As Martijn mentions in the question, limiting the number of pending suggested edits would go a long way to ...
People that are getting post banned are people that have consistently and repeatedly made serious mistakes. They've done so despite repeated warnings that their behavior is problematic, and with no improvements. They're users that have so consistently been of net harm to the site that we don't want them participating anymore because they're just so ...
Everyone sees why limits are in place, but I agree that there could be exceptions. However, I don't think it should be done on rep. Instead, I'd allow exceptions based on the questions which have already been asked in the day (i.e. the ones contributing to the limit).
One very simple approach would be to not include any questions with (say) at least 3 ...