Limit amount of threads new members can create

[Scepticalscribe]

But did you create one (or two or three) thread(s), or 20 in the first 30 minutes of being here?

Of course not.

Actually, this was the first social media site I had ever joined - and, at the time, I wasn't sure of the etiquette of social media, or whether the question I asked would be regarded as a stupid one and whether anyone would come up with an answer. Reading through the site gave me an appreciation for a whole new vocabulary, which included words such as "threads", "OP", and "post".

But then, I'm from a different - pre-internet - generation; what I might regard as an example of atrocious manners might be seen somewhat differently by digital natives and youngsters.

 

[timeconsumer]

As far as I know, you need five posts before you are able to DM someone on the forum.

I've seen the stats for this forum - @Doctor Q does an excellent job of putting stuff together twice a year - and has tabulated this in a pie chart, if memory serves.

Anyway, if my recollection is accurate, something in excess of 90% of members made only one post, or between one and five posts, and, obviously, - while some were spam, many, if not most, were not.

My sense is that most 'genuine' individuals join the forum because they have a question they wish to ask about an Apple product that they may have bought, and personally, while I think your post (and point) is well made and argued, I'd hate to see something brought in which discourages the participation of those who have joined in order to get answers to questions they may have, or which may serve to make them feel less welcome.

I still think that there needs to be a limit of how many threads a new member can create in an hour. I wouldn’t suggest requiring them to have X amount of posts before they can create a new thread because as you mentioned they may just register to get help once then never log in again.

If the statistics show that "in excess of 90% of members made only one post, or between one and five posts" then perhaps make it to where new members can only create 5 new threads per hour.

Note: I’m not wanting posts to be limited, just the creation of new threads.

 

[C DM]

But did you create one (or two or three) thread(s), or 20 in the first 30 minutes of being here?

Yeah, it's not really as much as about limiting the ability to create any new threads as much as it is about creating too many threads (in a short period of time), realistically for any member, but probably more so for new members. It likely wouldn't change anything for any normal user and realistically only the would-be spammers would likely even encounter that.

 

[Doctor Q]

I think requiring a minimum time between new threads would be fine. We don't currently have software that does this.

Sometimes an innocent user will start two threads in a short period because they are asking the same question in two forums, rather than picking the best one forum. Spammers and spambots, on the other hand, will start new threads as quickly as is possible. Even if we required an interval of a few minutes, which would annoy some legitimate users, we could still end up with many spam threads before reports came in and moderators deleted them all. The advantage is that it wouldn't be as many threads as with a shorter minimum interval or no minimum at all.

 

[Strelok]

How about a captcha for brand new members posting multiple threads in a short span? It would only hurt someone if they post 2+ threads in a few minutes and only for a few days until their account is “verified” as real.

 

[Doctor Q]

A check for duplicate or "very similar" threads would also help, since spambots may be posting one particular message, ad, or URL over and over.

However, keeping spambots away with captchas is a cat and mouse game. Some of them learn to solve certain types of captchas. If they use that trick, they can create multiple new accounts in a short period of time, each allowed to post one new thread. Detecting and stopping that different software.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

How about a captcha for brand new members posting multiple threads in a short span? It would only hurt someone if they post 2+ threads in a few minutes and only for a few days until their account is “verified” as real.

No, for the simple reason that this may serve to discourage significant numbers of those who created an account just to ask one question,especially if they are new to the site of this form of communication. I'd prefer not to create extra barriers to discourage newbies from being able to participate in the forum.

Besides, I wear glasses and sometimes have been known to make a bit of a mess of a captcha. They don't just ensnare spammers.

@Doctor Q has already mentioned the sort of newbie who may inadvertently post two threads on the same topic in their eagerness to have someone notice them and actually answer the question asked.

 

[C DM]

I think requiring a minimum time between new threads would be fine. We don't currently have software that does this.

Sometimes an innocent user will start two threads in a short period because they are asking the same question in two forums, rather than picking the best one forum. Spammers and spambots, on the other hand, will start new threads as quickly as is possible. Even if we required an interval of a few minutes, which would annoy some legitimate users, we could still end up with many spam threads before reports came in and moderators deleted them all. The advantage is that it wouldn't be as many threads as with a shorter minimum interval or no minimum at all.

It probably wouldn't necessarily just be something like just a minimum between new threads, but probably some number of new threads over a short period time. It definitely won't stop spam, but can help not seeing a forum with something like 20 spam threads almost in a row from someone that just posted them within the last hour or so.

 

[C DM]

Well, another example of it all not working out quite well as it is with a new "user" joining just today and in the span of less than two hours flooding a couple of sections with over 80 spam threads that essentially completely took over those sections and thrown everything off there.

 

[willmtaylor]

Well, another example of it all not working out quite well as it is with a new "user" joining just today an in the span of less than two hours flooding a couple of sections with over 80 spam threads that completely overtake those sections and throw everything off there.

Seems to be occurring more frequently.

 

[ucfgrad93]

As a discussion forum, I think its bad form to limit discussions based on join date - just my $.02

Agreed. Let the people talk.

 

[C DM]

Agreed. Let the people talk.

Doesn't seem like limiting the rate of new thread creation to a certain degree so that the forums wouldn't get flooded would really get in the way of that.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Doesn't seem like limiting the rate of new thread creation to a certain degree so that the forums wouldn't get flooded would really get in the way of that.

It does if you are just arbitrarily coming up with limits. I mean, I could start 100 or so threads a day, how is that different from a newbie doing it?

 

[C DM]

It does if you are just arbitrarily coming up with limits. I mean, I could start 100 or so threads a day, how is that different from a newbie doing it?

We aren't really talking about limits like that, as much as flooding limits, as in rate limits. Let's frame it this way: aside from simply noticing something at some point and reporting it and then waiting for some action to be taken, which sometimes can take hours, what would be a reasonable way to avoid a situation where a user (and in these type of scenarios it's practically always a new user) starts let's say something like over 50 new threads in the span of about an hour, as an example (and not exactly all that theoretical one)?

Speaking of theoretical examples and discussions, are there "legitimate" cases of a user (new or otherwise) posting something like 100 new threads even in a span of something like a day (let alone much less than that)?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

..........

Speaking of theoretical examples and discussions, are there "legitimate" cases of a user (new or otherwise) posting something like 100 new threads even in a span of something like a day (let alone much less than that)?

No, but there are legitimate cases of a new user posting several threads on a given topic (usually when asking for help about something which is why they would have joined the forum in the first place) while not knowing where to place the post or what the given etiquette of the forum on such matters actually is, and sometimes being told, brusquely, by old hands, 1) don't start several threads on the same topic, and 2) use the search function to see whether this topic has been addressed already.

As already mentioned, I joined the forum to ask a question about a new Apple computer and for no other reason, and the stats show clearly that the vast majority of members join the forum to ask a question (perhaps spread over several sections of the forum not knowing where to go) and rarely post anything further.

I would be loathe to do anything to make the forums less welcoming to newbies.

 

[C DM]

No, but there are legitimate cases of a new user posting several threads on a given topic (usually when asking for help about something which is why they would have joined the forum in the first place) while not knowing where to place the post or what the given etiquette of the forum on such matters actually is, and sometimes being told, brusquely, by old hands, 1) don't start several threads on the same topic, and 2) use the search function to see whether this topic has been addressed already.

As already mentioned, I joined the forum to ask a question about a new Apple computer and for no other reason, and the stats show clearly that the vast majority of members join the forum to ask a question (perhaps spread over several sections of the forum not knowing where to go) and rarely post anything further.

I would be loathe to do anything to make the forums less welcoming to newbies.

It doesn't seem that appropriate limitations to prevent true flooding would get in the way of what you are describing.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It doesn't seem that appropriate limitations to prevent true flooding would get in the way of what you are describing.

Well, I don't see it as a major problem except on certain days when a veritable flood tide of spam occurs; however, when I see spam, I report it immediately and then assume it will be dealt with.

For all of that, my preference would be to be to make the forum as easy to access as possible, rather than adding obstacles to what can be an intimidating environment for (genuine) newcomers.

 

[C DM]

Well, I don't see it as a major problem except on certain days when a veritable flood tide of spam occurs; however, when I see spam, I report it immediately and then assume it will be dealt with.

For all of that, my preference would be to be to make the forum as easy to access as possible, rather than adding obstacles to what can be an intimidating environment for (genuine) newcomers.

Again, it doesn't seem like any of that would be an obstacle or intimidating in any way to new or old users as they wouldn't run into it in their use.

 

[dukebound85]

I

I agree. No point penalizing all new members because of a few rogue members. New members may be new to Apple devices and have a lot of questions. I report spam when I see it.

I dunno, who needs to create 25 threads in half an hr? I like the idea by the op

 

[rafark]

I think requiring a minimum time between new threads would be fine. We don't currently have software that does this.

Sometimes an innocent user will start two threads in a short period because they are asking the same question in two forums, rather than picking the best one forum. Spammers and spambots, on the other hand, will start new threads as quickly as is possible. Even if we required an interval of a few minutes, which would annoy some legitimate users, we could still end up with many spam threads before reports came in and moderators deleted them all. The advantage is that it wouldn't be as many threads as with a shorter minimum interval or no minimum at all.

It's as simple as rejecting the creation of threads that have a URL on the title or the body, from say members with less than 10 posts and 10 days. Of course with software. Newbs can still create threads, only without a URL. Some forums don't even disclose the required number of posts required to post URLs as a way to prevent bots from adapting. I'm sure there must be already an extension for Xenforo.

 

[maflynn]

I'm sure there must be already an extension for Xenforo.

How much of an issue is this that requires an extension, or customization to the forum software?

Yes, at times early in the morning (early for me), there may be some spammers and there could be multiple threads created by them, but they're typically removed fairly quickly.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

How much of an issue is this that requires an extension, or customization to the forum software?

Yes, at times early in the morning (early for me), there may be some spammers and there could be multiple threads created by them, but they're typically removed fairly quickly.

Exactly.

While I dislike spam - and have reported quite a number of spam threads and posts over the years (including some as recently as today) - the system as it is deals pretty well with spam and the mods are onto annoying examples (especially annoying examples that are reported) pretty quickly.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

I've heard multiple times that the mods have a lot to do and struggle with keeping up at times and here is a solution that will lessen their workload by automating a small part of what they do. Something they do "pretty well" and "pretty quickly" could be "excellently" and "instantaneously" and "automatically." The "small" problem could be stopped before it even is a problem *in a way that would affect legitimate users, new and old, in no way.*

And people are against this? Boggles my small mind.

 

[Strelok]

I've heard multiple times that the mods have a lot to do and struggle with keeping up at times and here is a solution that will lessen their workload by automating a small part of what they do. Something they do "pretty well" and "pretty quickly" could be "excellently" and "instantaneously" and "automatically." The "small" problem could be stopped before it even is a problem *in a way that would affect legitimate users, new and old, in no way.*

And people are against this? Boggles my small mind.

The only thing I can think of is they really want the user interaction/ad views by making it as user friendly as possible. I still don't see why there is any case for someone posting 5+ threads in the span of 1 minute.

 

[dukebound85]

Exactly.

While I dislike spam - and have reported quite a number of spam threads and posts over the years (including some as recently as today) - the system as it is deals pretty well with spam and the mods are onto annoying examples (especially annoying examples that are reported) pretty quickly.

But why not automate it? It’s in place in many other forums