Ryan,
You are correct. I apologize for the ambiguity of my suggestion. To restate, I was suggesting that users be restricted to a fixed or variable amount of posts per thread per day. It could also be done by percentages after a certain amount of time or posts, e.g. Post has 50 posts in a day, User X has made 26 of them.
Geoffrey
________________________________ From: Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral315@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:43:01 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wikipedia@verizon.netwrote:
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@yahoo.com wrote:
Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of
those
things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences.
I think the better approach is what the moderators have occasionally done in the past, which is to kill a specific thread. And the rest of us can call out those threads as being worthless, as several people have done, or ignore them (Thomas Dalton is right about that at least). But I expect throttling threads would be counterproductive. The beneficial effect of the current moderation is that it creates space for a more inclusive discussion, by restraining "post-early-and-often" behavior. A per-thread throttle would create an incentive to encourage that behavior, by privileging those who are quickest to respond.
--Michael Snow
My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.