View Poll Results: Who would you like to be, why & what would you do?!!
- 20. You may not vote on this poll
July 30th, 2002, 07:32 PM
There's no need to go below 60. You can always hold off pressing the 'submit' button for a little while, and it also helps prevent multiple posts, either intentional or otherwise.
[HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency
August 3rd, 2002, 12:10 AM
I agree that there should *always* be a limit to prevent flooding, and multiple posts - as Terr pointed out - because the system has prevented me from accidently posting more than once because my browser and extremely slooow net connection failed to fetch the confirmation page and forward me to my post.
60 seconds seems a bit long to me, it depends really on whether you are used to writing long essays that you spend 5 minutes (or longer) composing, or whether you post short tips and share small bits of information.
For me, 60 seconds is pushing it a bit. The majority of internet users in the UK only have 56k modems at best, and we pay heavily for phone calls at the same time. This means that, unless we purchase a unmetered package, usually for £15+ per month, we are limited to the time we can spend online (because of the cost) and the speed at which we can surf. Forcing a whole minute between posts means that things are even more difficult for us hard-done by Brits. I'd prefer 20 - 30 seconds because that means I can go online, read a few threads, reply to anything interesting, and then disconnect before the phone bill starts mounting up.
30 seconds is likely to put off most flooders, although I personally prefered the old 20 seconds limit. Anything longer than 30 seconds is likely to start seriously annoying legitimate posters - hence this thread.
August 18th, 2002, 05:38 AM
The purpose of the 60 second delay is to help prevent flooding and spamming.