THE TWO MINUTE WAIT IS AN ABOMINATION!

Thanks for the feedback, Frank. We're trying to trying to strike a balance between preventing spam floods and minimizing inconvenience to legitimate users and as it seems the 150 second delay is annoying and inconvenient for some, I've reduced it to 60 seconds. Hopefully that will work for everyone (or at least most) but if not, we'll consider reducing it further. Eventually, we will be implementing other spam prevention measures that should be much less noticeable to legitimate users.

Probation for new accounts?

Thank you, Peter.

I know you folk do a great job...and keeping that spam nonsense out of the mix is a blessing for all of us.

I hope the 60 seconds is long enough to do the job. If not...go back to the longer period...and I am sure we can all live with it.

Its a hammer approach to a problem.

For once I agree with Hawkeye. A probation period of even a few days will really cut back spammers. Maybe even a ban on posting new thread until until a certain amount of responding posts have been made that don't get reported. Say 20 0r 25 posts must be made before being allowed to start a thread.

I thing that would be counter productive. Most legitimate posters come here for the first time to ask a question (homework, love life, electrical problem, etc). Most leave after getting an answer, a few stick around. Saying you can't ask a question until you are a member in good standing would stop the majority of potential new member traffic.

The two minute idea is worth trying. Removing it after a user is over XX posts seems like a good compromise.

Once again, I think Hawkeye is right. There are certain members that seem to be targeted.

Whats with all the snark? I am a dyslexic and yes, I need a hand walking through the a2k company store at least the first time.

The problem is that "spam" has an evolving definition here at a2k. I've been suspended for posting too much on my own threads. I defy anyone to point out even one of my posts designed to sell or promote any sort of product or service or to "shout" down any other member.

If these new members are by and large single time posters, whats the downside of cutting them versus driving off posters like me?

Most spammers are single time posters, too. I used to get up at 4:00am to do moderating of new posters on DU and then I'd go and pick off spammers on a2k. And 90%+ were single time posters or posters who only spammed for that one day.

But I do think the 2 minute up wait until XX posts have been made is a good idea.

First, their questions are interesting and often promote discussion long after they are gone.

Second, some of them stick around and become posters like us.

(Third, I think nobody is really thinking of leaving A2K because of a two minute limit. If it hammers the spammers, it would be a big net win for me.)

Eng with a change of heart I almost agree. One can go pee or get another cuppa coffee. Incidentally however, recent studies suggest a deleterious effect of more than 3 cups

C'mon, everyone. Peter Frouman said that he has reduced it to 60 seconds...and I think that takes care of any concerns I have. And if it has to be moved back up to 120 or more...we will all have to live with it.

We love this place...right!

How many pees and coffees does one need? After every single post? There are ways around the two minute rule, BTW.

New posters at the least need to monitored for a week or two.

Varies from one indi to the next. I for one am suicidal until at leasst the second cup

Of coffee that is

No Frank, I won't. It breaks up the flow of the conversation if the participants are online at the same time.

Why are we depending on an imperfect tech solution when a few monitoring/moderating changes would be better for everyone except trolls and spammers?

How about eliminating strings of posters responding literally to themselves?

Me, too. I keep the pot on and reloaded until at least late afternoon.

Maybe that's why the two minute thing is so frustrating to this dyslexic poster.

But its an unnecessary for the regulars and not the best or even simplest solution to trolls and spammers.

I know, Frank. I know.
At our age we haven't an abundance of minutes left.
But also, at our age, who gives a rodent's rump about what we have to say?

Nonsense . . . two individuals, or one using two accounts, was using an automated system to overcome the standard flood control. Post until flood control shuts you down, then switch to the other account to continue posting. You weren't here. You could go from one page of "New Posts" and find a page or more of spam, because more spam kept being poured in at the front end, moving everything back a page or more every few minutes.

If you pile up sandbags to contain the effects of flooding, it's rather idiotic to complain that the bags don't look nice.

The current wait time does not bother me at all. Do we need more moderators? If so that could be fixed.