limits

[booger]

ther is a 5 limit post before posting web links? .....why is that?

[MrMistery]

So that people don't come on this site advertising their sites and against SPAM bots. We are sorry if it causes inconvenience, but(and our older users can testify for this) we used to have a lot of problems with spam. This is just one of the methods we have employed to tried to make this forum an experience as pleasurable as possible for our users.

[plusminus]

I think a (well working) captcha-system would work better.

[alextemplet]

I'm a big supporter of the 5-post-minimum rule; spam has almost gone extinct here since that rule was implemented. And getting five posts isn't hard at all. A post in the "Introduction for Members" thread counts as one already. You can comment on a couple of threads of your choice, or you could just type a bunch of posts in the "Last Person to Reply Wins!" thread. Anyone who's played that game for a while can tell you, you can get away with almost any useless post in that thread.

[mith]

Capcha takes out bots, we have problems with advertisers.

[Dustfinger]

It#s a good idea, but the problem is that there are people who need answers urgently and that'll make it harder for them...

[mith]

There's some simple ways around it, and links don't really need to be posted unless you're too lazy to type up a question.

[alextemplet]

Even if you can't post links yet, you can still just type out the url and let people copy-and-past. That's almost as good, I think.

The 5-post-minimum may not be a perfect solution to the spam problem, but it works very very well, so I say keep it.

[Dustfinger]

So it's just about links ?

[canalon]

Yes just to make posting links to for example to site listing pirate copies of book a wee bit harder to post. Not that this prevent the posters to make a lot of useless posts to reach the 5 posts limits. Which annoys me a lot.

[Dustfinger]

Well, it's a good idea. And hopefully effective too !