PDA

View Full Version : 120 second rule



SuperDave
09-21-2007, 07:19 AM
It really sucks! *

In fact, I had to go get another cup of coffee just so I could post this without a message telling me my post was blocked.

drstressor
09-21-2007, 07:55 AM
Yes it does. It's particularly hard on the moderators who need to do the things they have to do and get on with their lives.

But on the other hand, spam posts on multiple boards have pretty much been stopped by the rule. So I think that it is accomplishing what was intended.

Yaker
09-21-2007, 09:57 AM
It dings me almost daily. I open each of my "regular" boards in its own tab (I.e. general fresh water in one, striper in another, etc). I then go through and can read/respond very quickly- usually in less than 120 seconds.

The point of this rule is to prevent what is called a "denial of service" attack by some yahoos using automated programs to submit hundreds or thousands of submissions a second. Its a good control to have in place but perhaps 60 seconds would still be an effective deterrent and still allow moderators and fast typers to interact without interruption.

Just my $0.02....

Yaker

metalmouth
09-21-2007, 11:39 AM
60 Seconds would work for me. Having 120 seconds is less of a pain then cleaning up auto spam! *:o :-? >:(

MM

SuperDave
09-21-2007, 12:05 PM
Having 120 seconds is less of a pain then cleaning up auto spam! *:o :-? >:(

MM

From the "Inconvenience the many for the sake of the few" theory. ;D

troutfan
09-24-2007, 06:38 AM
Having 120 seconds is less of a pain then cleaning up auto spam! *:o :-? >:(

MM

From the "Inconvenience the many for the sake of the few" theory. * ;D
As a moderator I can say that some delay in posting is critical. *60 seconds would probably be sufficent. *If you've ever *spent an hour or two hiding porn links and taking all the steps necessary to immediately address the problem you would understand, it's not something that I or anyone else would care to do on a daily basis. ;)

metalmouth
09-24-2007, 07:19 AM
I agree Troutfan. I know that it may be an inconvenience to members who want to post on several subjects as it catches me on a daily basis. Still, my inconvenience is limited to 120 seconds instead of the hours we used to spend on a daily basis to make sure that are members weren't negatively effected by the viruses and Trojan Horses that were contained in the spam. >:(

SuperDave
09-24-2007, 07:25 AM
So how do we explore if a reduced time lag would work?

metalmouth
09-24-2007, 07:47 AM
I'll check with the Admins and see if there are different delay times available with the YaBBC program?

SuperDave
09-24-2007, 08:07 AM
Thanks MM, BTW, you global guys come across as a little sensitive. ;D ;D

drstressor
09-24-2007, 08:12 AM
You sure whine a lot, don't you Dave? ;)

SuperDave
09-24-2007, 08:14 AM
You sure whine a lot, don't you Dave? ;)

Doc, only as the voice of "The People" . ;D ;D

jeffrm20
09-24-2007, 08:39 AM
It would be nice if individual members had rights to a non-delay-posting time say once you reach Big Kahuna and the moderators feel you are responsible enough. But I am sure it's one setting for all.

Jeff

Yaker
09-25-2007, 03:19 PM
I'll check with the Admins and see if there are different delay times available with the YaBBC program?

Its a menu option called "Minimum time between two postings from the same IP."

SuperDave
09-25-2007, 03:28 PM
I'll check with the Admins and see if there are different delay times available with the YaBBC program?

Its a menu option called "Minimum time between two postings from the same IP."


So Yaker, are they mandated times one is forced to choose from or can one enter the specific delay time desired?

Yaker
09-25-2007, 07:23 PM
Hi SuperDave,

In the configuration file that the forums application uses its free form. However, your admin may be using a menu-driven administrator that requires you choose from a list. It depends on how they set it up. Either way you could have someone edit your configuration file directly if it was important to you.

Yaker

metalmouth
09-26-2007, 08:07 AM
Thanks for your input Yaker. I learn a lot from your posts. It's been reconfigured for now. We'll see what success we maintain and go from there.

MM

SuperDave
09-26-2007, 12:39 PM
Thanks, now I have another question. The timer apparently views searches the same as a post. Why is that?

RonM
09-26-2007, 12:56 PM
The time between posts was designed to limit the load on the server, posting and searches both take up resources so it may look at them as the same for that setting.

Yaker
09-26-2007, 01:05 PM
Thanks, now I have another question. The timer apparently views searches the same as a post. Why is that?



SuperDave- "post" is a techie term for data being "posted" from a user's browser to the server. The server doesn't differentiate between searches and a user adding to a thread. On the back end they're all the same. It is correct that your setting change impacted both.

Yaker

metalmouth
09-26-2007, 02:01 PM
Yaker, great explanation. The setting does effect both.

jeffrm20
09-26-2007, 02:04 PM
The 60 seconds is working a lot better for me, it usually will take just about that for me to read a thread and reply to it. Now I guess the thing is to watch the server!

Rusty_Hooks
11-06-2007, 03:04 PM
There are still a few glitches....par example

I post up then try to view the ten last posts....REJECTED

I signed off......don't have the time to wait for it....will have to wait for......NEXT time...

I don't get much play time these days ;D ;D

SuperDave
11-06-2007, 03:22 PM
Rusty,
Read below. We have to live with it.





Thanks, now I have another question. *The timer apparently views searches the same as a post. *Why is that?



SuperDave- "post" is a techie term for data being "posted" from a user's browser to the server. The server doesn't differentiate between searches and a user adding to a thread. On the back end they're all the same. It is correct that your setting change impacted both.

Yaker