1. 32

Proposal: limit story submissions to four per day per user.

Rationale: I’m getting flooded by new stories, but half of them are coming from one user. (Nothing personal, dude.)

Cause: I think it’s too easy to submit every link one comes across, relying on lobsters votes to edit them, but I think the site works best when users self edit first.

Results: fewer submissions. I’m not concerned about high quality stories getting lost because I think other users are likely to submit them.

  1.  

  2. 18

    Nothing personal taken, i’ve been deliberately posting a lot. I’ve figured if it was a problem @jcs would tell me to knock it off.

    For what it’s worth, I am heavily self-editing. Probably only one in ten posts is a “eh, I don’t know how people will take this, let’s see if folks feel it fits”. The rest is “this was an interesting post/paper (I’ve been digging into CS history lately) that I think would fit”. The number of times I go to submit something and see it already submitted a few hours prior is steadily increasing; I think it happened four times yesterday.

    1. 16

      I’ve really been enjoying your compsci posts and paper posts. My favorite thing about lobste.rs is that people post (usually good) papers here. Post like that tend to not be viable on Hacker News anymore. I absolutely love that classic papers can become top posts here.

      Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing more papers and deeper dive stuff. Maybe cut back on the “bloggier” stuff? (I’ve been guilty of posting some lame stories I later regretted wasting people’s time with, so I shouldn’t really speak to that.) FWIW, I didn’t really have a problem with your posting rate.

      1. 6

        I agree. I love finding these papers on Lobsters.

        1. 3

          I have been posting less papers, I wasn’t able to search through my history very well, though this may have been fixed (BTW I think non-upvoted posts should show up in search). Some great stuff didn’t get upvoted, or stuff gets upvoted and not commented so it isn’t terribly useful.

          1. 2

            I dunno, it feels like the bloggier stuff gets more upvotes than the papers. There seems to be a sweet spot where something is written informally using a popular language but references more serious CS concepts; the stuff that explicitly sets out to explore those concepts gets ignored.

            1. 8

              PDFs don’t really read well on small (phone) screens. I tend to do most of my reading on my phone on my commute, and it wouldn’t surprise me if others were in the same situation.

              1. 1

                No kidding. The ones with two-column text are even painful on landscape monitors <= 15". I wish PDF had not managed to become such a standard. I have been moderately tempted to buy a Sony Digital Paper (an 8.5"x11" eink ereader) just because of this problem, but the ~$1,300 price is just too steep.

          2. 2

            Yeah, you’re obviously spending more time reading than I am these days. :) Don’t worry, it’s hardly a crisis.

          3. 8

            Is it me? Am I submitting too many tedunangst.com posts?

            An alternative might be to set a threshold for mailing list posts, so you could say “don’t e-mail me until posts have X number of points”.

            1. 4

              I actually like reading @pushcx’s posts, I just don’t have time to read everything. However, limiting posts by per-user per-day seems like a very strange bandaid to put on a very normal problem.

              1. 3

                A quick look at the “Newest” section (which I use as “front page”) makes me think he’s referring to someone else.

                "Am I submitting too many tedunangst.com posts?"
                No, you’re not submitting enough!

                I like the idea, by the way!

              2. 13

                I agree with this. I would rather have fewer posts but ones people really want to share rather than more posts but most of them drivel. I don’t know what the proper number should be, but I am for.

                1. 8

                  It could self-adjust based on the user’s recent submissions and their vote counts. Post a lot of frequently-upvoted stuff and you’ll keep getting allowed to post it. Post a lot of 1-point submissions, and you get throttled.

                  I would hope that users just self-police themselves this way and think, “gee, all of my recent submissions haven’t gotten any upvotes or comments, maybe I should stop posting it” but some people just cross-post stuff everywhere they can to get traffic and not care about the votes or discussion.

                  1. 8

                    This is a smart idea, but please don’t :) It would be another thing where the “majority” controls what I see on Lobsters. I dislike this because I think it would eventually harm the diversity of interests, points of view and opinions represented on Lobsters.

                    1. 4

                      IMO this is probably something where the naive solution (cap posts per 24 hour period) works just as good, if not better, than the super clever solution.

                      1. 2

                        I was aiming for easy of implementation :), but I won’t stop you from making something complicated. A credit system that returns your credit after X upvotes is another scheme.

                        1. 1

                          I like the credit system much more than blind throttling. Just make sure it’s a throttle (i.e. 1 post per day) and not banning them from ever posting again.

                      2. 4

                        I’d love something like this. Perhaps the number could be a function of the up votes of your previous posts? This way a steady stream of highly-voted posts would grant you a higher limit of posts you can post in a day.

                        1. 4

                          I feel like limiting posts per user would be a good solution to a flood of low quality posts from a small number of users, but I don’t think we have that problem yet. There are a lot of stories I don’t read, but typically it’s because they aren’t something I’m excited about, and not because they’re low quality.

                          1. 3

                            +1; I like lobste.rs mainly because it’s low-traffic and (so far) the stories are mostly interesting.

                            1. 2

                              No offense taken!