I think techniques for automatically slowing down bots would be the most valuable place to concentrate our efforts.
This sounds promising to me too. What's the fastest rate of saving that a legitimate user is likely to
use?
What's the fastest rate of saving that we can expect to keep up with if used by a bot? I'm going make a 0th approximation of 1 minute for
each.
Too slow? too fast?
I often prepare a set of inter-related articles and upload them using multiple browser tabs, saving them as fast as I can click the button. There's no reason I couldn't wait between saves, but I don't want to....
-- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.com
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I often prepare a set of inter-related articles and upload them using multiple browser tabs, saving them as fast as I can click the button. There's no reason I couldn't wait between saves, but I don't want to....
Same here.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus � Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
I often prepare a set of inter-related articles and upload them using multiple browser tabs, saving them as fast as I can click the button. There's no reason I couldn't wait between saves, but I don't want to....
Same here.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus – Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This sort of situation is a well known problem in network traffic shaping and other queueing systems.
This can be handled by a "leaky bucket" mechanism which gives the user an allowance of say five saves that can be used as fast as they like. When the burst allowance is used up, they have to wait for their allowance to be refilled before they can do it again. This allows quick bursts of edits, whilst restraining the sustained rate.
So, a reasonable specification for a "leaky bucket" rate filter might be:
instantaneous edit rate: no limit max sustained rate: 2 edits per minute bucket size: 5 edits
Neil Harris
Neil Harris wrote:
This can be handled by a "leaky bucket" mechanism which gives the user an allowance of say five saves that can be used as fast as they like. When the burst allowance is used up, they have to wait for their allowance to be refilled before they can do it again. This allows quick bursts of edits, whilst restraining the sustained rate.
This all sounds very icky to me. At it's core, wikipedia is a very simple thing. I think a better solution is to find the problem and fix it.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org