Timeline for answer to Remove number of links restriction for new users by Shog9
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 10, 2012 at 23:59 | comment | added | John Lyon | Another frustrated user | |
| May 7, 2012 at 23:47 | comment | added | John Lyon | And finally, is spam really a problem? I would think that the tools available (flag, downvote, vote to close, or delete if a moderator) are enough. I've never seen a spammy question, and answers are downvoted/removed very quickly. I guess my issue is that I don't understand what the problem is that the "two links" rule supposedly solves. | |
| May 7, 2012 at 23:45 | comment | added | John Lyon | You can't even ask a question here without references, so you're unnecessarily creating a chicken-and-egg problem. People aren't going to upvote your questions and answers if they aren't referenced, but you need those upvotes in order to be able link to references. I think this is pretty ridiculous, and on Skeptics it's a massive barrier to entry. I wonder how many good answers we've missed out on due to this? | |
| Apr 20, 2012 at 14:10 | comment | added | Sklivvz StaffMod | Shog, there are exactly zero reasons to limit the number of links. Zero. Spam is spam and only needs one link. 2 links is a weird compromise that is just pointless. It does not prevent spam and it sucks for new users. Especially on sites which are not-programming-related and thus potentially more sexy for people not familiar with our format. | |
| Jul 11, 2011 at 13:34 | comment | added | MrHen | +1; I don't understand why getting 10 points would be hard. The restriction is there for a reason and it is pretty easy to get the reputation. (Especially coming in from another SE site.) | |
| Jul 10, 2011 at 17:53 | comment | added | Werner Schmitt | @ shog +1 actually astonishing you get downvotes for this statement as according to your profile you have a high experience how the SE system works together with the typical users. The quality of questions here is low imho, a problem on all SE sites the more average user they gain. But here additionally they try to make the rating system/rules even worse with regard to this fundamental problem esp. of the skeptics topic, sensationalism and prejudices. The bottom line should be higher as on other SE sites, not lower. I dont get it... | |
| Apr 17, 2011 at 2:11 | history | edited | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
address concerns raised in comments
|
| Apr 16, 2011 at 21:31 | comment | added | Martin Scharrer | Getting one up-vote on an answer might be easy on other stackexchange sites, but not here on skeptics. If you don't include not enough links to your sources -- which you can't until you get the up-vote -- you will only earn down-votes. I'm glad I started here with the +100rep bonus from my other stackexchange accounts. | |
| Apr 16, 2011 at 17:11 | comment | added | user288 | -1: solution "blame the spammers" is not as good as solution "increase the number of links allowed" or solution "remove the restriction alltogether". | |
| Mar 30, 2011 at 17:59 | history | answered | Shog9StaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |