# What're your feelings on the new flood protection FA has?



## Charem (Aug 12, 2012)

If you guys didn't know, FA seems to now prevent you from posting a comment within 10 seconds of having posted one already.  This is pretty obviously flood protection.

I mostly support it, as it is a good idea and a reasonable amount of time for most situations.  However, I've triggered the warning message a few times while responding to people on my OWN submissions and journals, which I don't know if I like...

I usually have a fair amount of people to respond to when I post up a submission or journal, and tend to reply to a block of them all at once.  Since sometimes the comments I get are pretty basic or generic, I often reply with a 'hehe!' or '<3' or some other quick reply to acknowledge their comment and let them know it was appreciated, but that I had nothing to really add either. (I also tend to be a pretty quick typer.) Thus, I've been getting the flooding warning quite constantly when replying on my own stuff, and it's pretty frustrating since you also lose whatever text you tried to post when this happens.  (I can't just press the back button and have what I wrote recovered, either.)  Normally this isn't really a big deal since what I wrote wasn't long anyways, but one time I had written quite a long comment on one tab, didn't post it right away and switched to another tab where I made a quick comment, then tabbed back and posted the long comment - only to get the flooding warning and lose that entire long comment.  Admittedly that was pretty derpy of me to do that, but all the same...

Simply put, I think this '10 second rule' is a good one, but I think it shouldn't exist when a user is making comments within their own submissions, shouts, and journals.  I'm not sure how valid this thought is, from a programming standpoint, but I imagine it wouldn't be difficult to simply code the flood protection 'off' in those specific situations.

All in all, it mildly annoys me, and I'd like it to work a bit differently if possible, but I'm not one to make too big a deal of it.

But those are just my thoughts.  I'd love to hear what others think.

And apologies in advance if a thread on this topic happens to already exist.  If it does, I certainly didn't see it when I searched for it.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Aug 12, 2012)

Hmm it's just 10 seconds? Should be longer like, 15 - 20 seconds instead.


----------



## kayfox (Aug 12, 2012)

So this is the solution to refresh posting a comment again?

Not say ticketing actions so they cant be repeated over and over again?


----------



## CannonFodder (Aug 13, 2012)

Considering the amount of traffic Fa gets anti-flood measures are a good thing.


----------



## Teal (Aug 13, 2012)

I have never had this problem. :/
I didn't even know you had to wait between posting. :/


----------



## Campion1 (Aug 13, 2012)

Just copy the text you wrote before trying to submit the comment.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 13, 2012)

Campion1 said:


> Just copy the text you wrote before trying to submit the comment.


If your browser isn't smart enough to restore the text if you go back one page.


----------



## Nanakisan (Aug 13, 2012)

I agree with this new flood prevention but not with the delay between each post. a 20 second cool down would be more then sufficient i believe. granted...i'm not guilty to the 10second rule. forum i admin'd on i had to lock down and apply a flood filter...i hated it with a passion!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Aug 13, 2012)

This facility's current defense systems are woefully ineffective, falling well outside of containment protocol. The Flood would waste no time infecting or destroying anything they could get their slimy appendages on.


----------



## Charem (Aug 14, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> If your browser isn't smart enough to restore the text if you go back one page.



I use Chrome, and it IS smart enough to do this.  However, trying to back up results in the flood notification to pop right back up in an infinite loop.  Not even right clicking the back button and selecting the previous page - the submission page - will cause it to stop this.  I guess the protection things I'm trying to 'flood'-post again or something?  I have to load the submission link fresh to make it stop doing this.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> This facility's current defense systems are woefully ineffective, falling well outside of containment protocol. The Flood would waste no time infecting or destroying anything they could get their slimy appendages on.



XD  So true.


----------



## Ansitru (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm not a huge fan, but F5-ing seems to "break" the flood-lock.
I found this because the "click to continue"-link does not work. >:C


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 14, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Considering the amount of traffic Fa gets anti-flood measures are a good thing.


but we need a flood measure on comments?
I can understand uploads
but comments...why?


----------



## Charem (Aug 15, 2012)

Oh hey, my annoyance level has now grown from 'mildly bothered' to 'notably upset'.  I discovered (or FA staff just added in, I can't tell which) a new 'feature' of the flood protection, which I'll just provide a screenshot link to.

http://neuropod.net/imagehost/uploads/72846ffbd60cee7a27245baa4b8ae731.png

I can accept being told not to post at a rate faster than 10 seconds per comment.  But this is a LITTLE bit more annoying.  Not only is the 'try again later' part rather vague, but if you're posting/replying to 10 comments/shouts within a 5 minute period?  That's a rate of one comment every 30 seconds.  It's a LITTLE quick, but not an unrealistic speed to post at.  Yet if you post any faster than that, oops, you're gonna set the above notification and lose whatever you were typing!

I'm less and less cool about this flood protection.  What's next?  Telling me I posted too many comments today and to wait till tomorrow to post more?  =/


----------



## Taralack (Aug 15, 2012)

Maybe you should stop being so sociable! :V


----------



## PheagleAdler (Aug 15, 2012)

Charem said:


> Oh hey, my annoyance level has now grown from 'mildly bothered' to 'notably upset'.  I discovered (or FA staff just added in, I can't tell which) a new 'feature' of the flood protection, which I'll just provide a screenshot link to.
> 
> http://neuropod.net/imagehost/uploads/72846ffbd60cee7a27245baa4b8ae731.png
> 
> ...



5 minutes? No. Just no. Dragoneer, get your ass on this and fix it.


----------



## Soline (Aug 15, 2012)

It's a roughly good idea, like everything else good on the surface. It stops those blasted double-posts by accident, and generally the time it takes for the page to reload, me to read a new comment and type is longer than ten seconds, the only time it ever really even crops up is if, like you, you're commenting across multiple pages. Just do commenting one at a time and you'll be fine.


However, I take issue with it because, as Charem mentioned, it doesn't save your work. EVERYTHING else on the site does. fuck up? click back and your work is still there. This suggests to me the flood protection was quickly and poorly cobbled together to meet a quota, and I have a nagging suspicion the only actual reason for it is to cover up a glitch, specifically the one that spawns hundreds of duplicate comments for some reason.


----------



## Charem (Aug 15, 2012)

Toraneko said:


> Maybe you should stop being so sociable! :V



My...apologies?  XD



Soline said:


> It's a roughly good idea, like everything else good on the surface. It stops those blasted double-posts by accident, and generally the time it takes for the page to reload, me to read a new comment and type is longer than ten seconds, the only time it ever really even crops up is if, like you, you're commenting across multiple pages. Just do commenting one at a time and you'll be fine.
> 
> 
> However, I take issue with it because, as Charem mentioned, it doesn't save your work. EVERYTHING else on the site does. fuck up? click back and your work is still there. This suggests to me the flood protection was quickly and poorly cobbled together to meet a quota, and I have a nagging suspicion the only actual reason for it is to cover up a glitch, specifically the one that spawns hundreds of duplicate comments for some reason.



Double-posts would be stopped just as well if the flooding time limit was cut to 5 seconds between posts rather than 10 seconds.    I feel that 5 seconds is the best number for that, honestly.  Though I can survive on 10 seconds too.

The loop that backing-up from that message makes is really frustrating though.  It really does feel like a rushed feature, and again, it's not even mentioned ahead of time; just, buggily implemented with people only able to know that it's there when it starts screwing them up.


----------



## Mizuhiro Neko (Aug 15, 2012)

I did not notice it, but most likely only because the site has been so slow lately. If this is for the double posts, I think a token system so you can't use the same token to post twice would solve that in a much better way. Other sites do this, and I'm reasonably sure I could find a tutorial somewhere on setting it up, unless it is patented or something. Limiting how many times you can post in ten minutes? That is madness, I say...


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 16, 2012)

I didn't notice and think people should wait on making multiple comments instead of spamming up the system.

Does this also apply to people who upload a shitton of art as well? I hope so.


----------



## Charem (Aug 16, 2012)

Glaice said:


> I didn't notice and think people should wait on making multiple comments instead of spamming up the system.
> 
> Does this also apply to people who upload a shitton of art as well? I hope so.



I agree, but I think it was taken a little too far.  The limits are a little too...limiting.  The fact I can hit these limits while going about my normal business on the site is kind of lame.

Actually, didn't FA update the submission policy to be -less- limiting recently?  I remember there being a limit (x number of submissions allowed to be uploaded in an hour period or something), but now the policy just states, "No more than 3 variations of the same image (including works-in-progress) may be uploaded." and now doesn't mention the number of things you can post in a period of time...  Personally it annoys me too when I see a person only post like once a month, and when they post they put up like 30 things at once.  I wish they'd dole it out a little more over the month...  Still, I don't mind a group of things being posted, especially if it's a comic sequence.


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 16, 2012)

I'm sorry to say, but you'll just have to deal with it. B-3


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 16, 2012)

Charem said:


> I agree, but I think it was taken a little too far.  The limits are a little too...limiting.  The fact I can hit these limits while going about my normal business on the site is kind of lame.
> 
> Actually, didn't FA update the submission policy to be -less- limiting recently?  I remember there being a limit (x number of submissions allowed to be uploaded in an hour period or something), but now the policy just states, "No more than 3 variations of the same image (including works-in-progress) may be uploaded." and now doesn't mention the number of things you can post in a period of time...  Personally it annoys me too when I see a person only post like once a month, and when they post they put up like 30 things at once.  I wish they'd dole it out a little more over the month...  Still, I don't mind a group of things being posted, especially if it's a comic sequence.



Not everybody produces imagery in regular bite-sized chunks. If you find the frequency of someone's uploads more irritating than their work is appealing why watch them?


----------



## Charem (Aug 16, 2012)

Glaice said:


> I'm sorry to say, but you'll just have to deal with it. B-3



Or it can be rationally discussed and debated, perhaps moving towards a fairer middle ground.  *shrugs*  I'll certainly deal with it if needed - it ain't gonna ruin my life if these changes stay exactly the same as they are now.

But I'm not fond of people ordering me to do so, either, 'kay?  83  "Deal with it" is often a passionless statement that people throw at other people when they disagree with them and want them to, simply put, shut up.  There's no harm in me opening this topic and discussing it with people.  I'd gladly debate the merits of this stuff with you, but your comment was a little rude and counter-productive.



Fallowfox said:


> Not everybody produces imagery in regular bite-sized chunks. If you find the frequency of someone's uploads more irritating than their work is appealing why watch them?



Wow, you made a lot of assumptions of my intent there from what I actually said.  83

I'm not that concerned about art-dumping - whatever floats a person's boat, man.  I even said "Personally it annoys me" at the start of my opinion, to point out it's -just my opinion-.  And if you'll read a little better, I was stating that it was those are posting gift art in a 'massed' method that was annoying me.  That is, people who get art drawn for them by many people (commissions, gifts, etc), and they post all they've thus obtained down at once.  This sorta doesn't seem that respectful to the many artists that drew them, that's all.

I'm TOTALLY cool when an artist posts their OWN work down in a mass.  It's their own art, so hey, however they prefer to handle it.  That doesn't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## LeoTWFZ (Aug 16, 2012)

well it pops up for me yet still floods ;P


----------



## Smelge (Aug 17, 2012)

Why the fuck would you need to post more than 10 things in 5 minutes? That's a comment every 30 seconds, which means you're obviously just writing the first shite that pops into your head and short posts rather than thinking about what you are writing like a functioning human.


----------



## Charem (Aug 17, 2012)

Apparently my expecting to have a mature debate on the subject, without seeing things dejecting into insults, was a grievous error on my part.

EDIT: Besides those who did debate the subject in a respectful manner anyways.  Thanks to you folks, I do appreciate that.


----------



## Draconas (Aug 18, 2012)

He'll comment in the way that pleases him, if it's not comments that are breaking the rules, harassing someone, or starting shit, why does anyone else have the right to dictate how long he should spend for writing comments and how to write them? Seriously if it's not your account, then I'd suggest you'd shut up about the matter and continue the discussion at hand here.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 18, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Why the fuck would you need to post more than 10 things in 5 minutes? That's a comment every 30 seconds, which means you're obviously just writing the first shite that pops into your head and short posts rather than thinking about what you are writing like a functioning human.


...auctions


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 18, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> ...auctions



Yeah, FA is a bad place to handle them. I should come to FA and cash my checks too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2012)

I think taking note of who is posting every 30 seconds is probably a good way to spot spam bots, compared to the rate most people post at. It's a shame this inconveniances some innocent people. :\

[on the other forum I use I regularly run into 30 second limits.]


----------



## Aaros (Aug 20, 2012)

Some artists get lots of comments on their pictures and like at acknowledge or say thanks to their commenters individually, even with just small replies and emoticons. In which case, 30 is certainly a long time for comments. This makes it especially problematic for artists who get tens of comments on submissions, and probably already are making a good time commitment just to give their commenters a little acknowledgement.
The rule is absurd.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 20, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Yeah, FA is a bad place to handle them. I should come to FA and cash my checks too.


nothing like an auction ending in 3mins, but getting hit with that flood control


also I will also thank that flood control for making me win an auction easily :V


----------



## Smelge (Aug 20, 2012)

Sorry, but auctions is a terrible thing to claim requires a shorter flood protection time. Why can't you pace it so you have a spare post in the final 30 seconds? Not difficult.

And artists thanking people for commenting is even worse. It just shows that the artist gives so little of a shit about their commenters that they're posting caned responses to make it look like they care. A proper response to someones comment should take longer than 30 seconds to read and respond to. If you're taking less than that, you should think again and either realise that what you want to say isn't worth saying, or actually spend a few more seconds making it worthwhile.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 20, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Sorry, but auctions is a terrible thing to claim requires a shorter flood protection time. Why can't you pace it so you have a spare post in the final 30 seconds? Not difficult.
> 
> And artists thanking people for commenting is even worse. It just shows that the artist gives so little of a shit about their commenters that they're posting caned responses to make it look like they care. A proper response to someones comment should take longer than 30 seconds to read and respond to. If you're taking less than that, you should think again and either realise that what you want to say isn't worth saying, or actually spend a few more seconds making it worthwhile.



Comment: Nice painting what medium did you use? 
Reply: Cheers, Acrylic [typed in under 30 seconds]

Somehow still a meaningful reply.


----------



## Devious Bane (Aug 20, 2012)

Smelge said:


> A proper response to someones comment should take longer than 30 seconds to read and respond to. If you're taking less than that, you should think again and either realise that what you want to say isn't worth saying, or actually spend a few more seconds making it worthwhile.


_"Nice Work"
"Thanks"_
I have to disagree but since you're going to have to wait 30seconds in between comments, why not?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 20, 2012)

Verin Asper said:


> nothing like an auction ending in 3mins, but getting hit with that flood control
> 
> 
> also I will also thank that flood control for making me win an auction easily :V



With mangled threading comments in addition, well congrats then!


----------



## cujoe_da_man (Aug 20, 2012)

obviously Smelge is a self hater and hater of everything else around him and has nothing to contribute because he doesn't understand that some of us artists like to take the time to respond/thank people for the comments they leave because some of us aren't complete self-centered dicks when it comes to art and actually appreciate the fact that we have people watching us and enjoy what they see.  What I hate is an artist that acts like they are high and mighty because they make art (and yes, some people are too busy to respond, I understand that), but what I hate worse is someone who is high and mighty because they think they are better than those that make art.

The point of the matter is that the flood control, while a good idea in theory, is limiting interactions between users.  Sometimes a message DOESN'T take 10 seconds to respond to.  If you're any decent at typing without looking, you can blast through a message in mere seconds.  I find it especially annoying because not only does it limit my own messages on my own works, but it's spread through the entire site.  So, if I respond to a comment on my own work and then comment on a work that I have opened in another tab (I do multi-task that way), then I have to wait for the filter to pass before I can comment again... then wait again to respond to ANOTHER comment.

The problem with the flood control is that while it looks good on paper, it's completely useless on a site that it takes upwards of 5mins to load a page (as is the case in recent weeks) and if it doesn't time out completely.  I'm going to hold out and HOPE that this is only a test phase, since the admin seem to be adding new things without even letting us know (like the SFW button that seems to be where the lag problems have come from).


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 20, 2012)

cujoe_da_man said:


> I'm going to hold out and HOPE that this is only a test phase, since the admin seem to be adding new things without even letting us know (like the SFW button that seems to be where the lag problems have come from).



Yeah, don't pull theories out if you don't know.
The SFW has nothing to do with it. Correlation != causation.

Look it's great that there are artists that thank others. However, to assume someone is a "self hater" just makes your argument as unreasonable as you accuse Smelge. 

You don't need to agree with what he says, but stooping down to this is just asinine. 

You also made assumptions that people are high and mighty, what evidence do you have?


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 20, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Sorry, but auctions is a terrible thing to claim requires a shorter flood protection time. Why can't you pace it so you have a spare post in the final 30 seconds? Not difficult.


in the last hour not really
I manage to trick the other two people by spacing out my posts as it was a 3 way fight, they were busy fighting each other and I would periodically pop it and make a bid. One on one there will be time between the posts, add a third person you might end up wasting your post towards person C with Person C wasting it on Person A leaving person A free to snipe the bid.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 20, 2012)

Why are people using FA in ways it was not meant for handling?
Auctions should be done on *auction sites*.

Complaining that an art site doesn't properly handle your auction is ridiculous.


----------



## BRN (Aug 20, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Why are people using FA in ways it was not meant for handling?
> Auctions should be done on *auction sites*.
> 
> Complaining that an art site doesn't properly handle your auction is ridiculous.



Can we not misdirect the topic any further? >.>


 Charem's raised a good point. The "10 comments in under 5 minutes" rule is ludicrous; many, many users on FA have a few hundred watchers, and if even a couple of percent of those choose to comment, it becomes impossible for the uploader to respond to them. It's a bizarre rule to implement.

I cheer FA for creating a new, working feature and support the coders but I don't support the code, here.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 20, 2012)

I agree that the 10 comments in under 5 minutes criterion is going to be problematic. I haven't even got to 100 watchers yet and find myself making 6 comments in under 5 minutes, assuming watchers remain just as talkative I empathise with people who have many more and are irritated by that limit. 

Does the website overload or encounter problems if people reply to comments this rapidly?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 20, 2012)

SIX said:


> Can we not misdirect the topic any further? >.>



It's not misdirected if someone feels this is a good example. 


Many people have several thousand watchers. Everyone uses FA differently.
There was quite a bit of well intended people thinking they were being polite by spamming users with things like 

"Kool pic"

"Rawr"

Yes there are legit posts, but right now this is the solution. I get that people are unhappy about it. I just don't see the point in validating it for things it was not meant for.


----------



## Charem (Aug 20, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Look it's great that there are artists that thank others. However, to assume someone is a "self hater" just makes your argument as unreasonable as you accuse Smelge.
> 
> 
> You don't need to agree with what he says, but stooping down to this is just asinine.




To be fair though, Smelge doesn't seem to agree with anything anybody else says, either.  :/  And he stooped a -whole- lot lower too.  


Cujoe was pretty tactless, all the same; two wrongs certainly don't make a right. I'm just saying.




Arshes Nei said:


> Why are people using FA in ways it was not meant for handling?
> Auctions should be done on *auction sites*.
> 
> 
> Complaining that an art site doesn't properly handle your auction is ridiculous.




Eh, you're right, but if some people want to use it to handle an auction, that's their business.  Why you getting worked up about that topic?


You don't need to agree with what Verin says...  Isn't that what you just said about Smelge?  It's good advice both ways.  



Fallowfox said:


> I agree that the 10 comments in under 5 minutes criterion is going to be problematic. I haven't even got to 100 watchers yet and find myself making 6 comments in under 5 minutes, assuming watchers remain just as talkative I empathise with people who have many more and are irritated by that limit.
> 
> Does the website overload or encounter problems if people reply to comments this rapidly?



Not that I've noticed, no.  I've been around for a while.



Arshes Nei said:


> Many people have several thousand watchers. Everyone uses FA differently.
> There was quite a bit of well intended people thinking they were being polite by spamming users with things like
> 
> "Kool pic"
> ...



Yes, everybody uses FA differently, which is why debates like this are healthy, to see differing opinions on subjects involving the site.

That spamming you mentioned?  I agree that it's spamming if a person decides to go through a person's entire gallery and leave comments like that.  (It's happened to me before several times.)  But if a person leaves a short comment like that here and there, I don't consider it spamming.  It's a bit of an inane comment yes, but it's still more 'meaningful' than true spam - and certainly legit.

Right now this is the solution; perhaps in the near future something better can be arranged though.  If you're still talking about the auctions, okay, I can't really dispute that, but there's more to this thread than the auction stuff (which only Verin brought up in the first place!).  Lots of us are being inconvenienced by this spam protection by using the site in a normal, intended fashion.

tl;dr, unless there's something still meaningful to contribute about it, can we get off the dang auction topic already?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Aug 20, 2012)

Charem said:


> Eh, you're right, but if some people want to use it to handle an auction, that's their business.  Why you getting worked up about that topic?



Then there shouldn't be a complaint that FA doesn't work right because it's not handling their auction. I don't complain about burger joints not selling tacos.

You want to complain about the flood check because of how many comments you make that's one thing. You want to complain that FA is not handling your auction when there are websites *for* auctions, it's wrong.

Don't flood the site with posts because either the person is too cheap to pay auction fees for places that handle it, or want to use the site for inappropriate means. It's not "their business"


----------



## DragonTalon (Aug 20, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Why the fuck would you need to post more than 10 things in 5 minutes? That's a comment every 30 seconds, which means you're obviously just writing the first shite that pops into your head and short posts rather than thinking about what you are writing like a functioning human.



Maybe you should take your own advice.

I posted something this morning and checked in to answer the ten comments it got.  It doesn't take 30 seconds to come up with "Thanks" when responding to someone saying they liked your post.

I ran into the flood protection and had to re-navigate back to the submission before I could re-type and post my comment.  Good idea, flawed implementation.  Hopefully an update will tweak it.  It's good to have flood protection but I agree that on your own posts it would be nice if it were disabled.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 20, 2012)

Arshes Nei said:


> Then there shouldn't be a complaint that FA doesn't work right because it's not handling their auction. I don't complain about burger joints not selling tacos.
> 
> You want to complain about the flood check because of how many comments you make that's one thing. You want to complain that FA is not handling your auction when there are websites *for* auctions, it's wrong.
> 
> Don't flood the site with posts because either the person is too cheap to pay auction fees for places that handle it, or want to use the site for inappropriate means. It's not "their business"


whoa now, 80% of these auctions tend to actually work ON fa, as the bidding wars dont get THAT out of hand to reach the break point. The person only wished they did what I did and waited to force me to comment to then snipe it but it was cutting it close thus his post was wasted and was hit with the flood control to snipe it from me. he actually thought he waited long enough to post again.

Auction sites are good and yes folks should be using em it just goes down to the users wanting to then go about and making an account for those various auction sites.


----------



## Armaetus (Aug 21, 2012)

In response to OP, I think it's fine the way it is if I haven't mentioned it before.


----------



## DragonTalon (Sep 21, 2012)

Any chance the flood protection can be turned off when responding to comments on your own submission?  There isn't any reason for stopping people from replying on their own submissions.

Kind of annoying, especially as when it kicks in it eats your comment with no way to recover it or even go back.  And the "Click to Continue" doesn't work.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Sep 22, 2012)

I never had a reason to post a second comment so quickly so I have never seen this notice. Good they have this now though it can also help in detouring trolls maybe?.... Probably not but one can hope.


----------



## DragonTalon (Sep 22, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> I never had a reason to post a second comment so quickly so I have never seen this notice. Good they have this now though it can also help in detouring trolls maybe?.... Probably not but one can hope.



I can get 10-30 comments on a submission and when I get home to answer them I am hitting the spam limit.  Never said it wasn't a good idea, it is, it's just that it shouldn't apply to responding to one of your own submissions.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 26, 2012)

The 10 second limit should be changed to 5.


----------



## ADF (Sep 26, 2012)

For me it just means it takes a lot longer to post "Thanks for the watch ^.=.^" in bulk when sorting through my new watches.


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 30, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> The 10 second limit should be changed to 5.



Then it's just spam-level speed posting.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 30, 2012)

Glaice said:


> Then it's just spam-level speed posting.



We're not in the early stages of computers and the internet. People can type quickly. Doesn't mean they're spamming.


----------



## CardiPwn (Sep 30, 2012)

I personally hate it, in response to OP.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Sep 30, 2012)

There's a flood detection?

I hadn't noticed.


----------



## Armaetus (Oct 7, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> We're not in the early stages of computers and the internet. People can type quickly. Doesn't mean they're spamming.



I think people want quality responses, no? It's not like I have the need to post "Thanks for watch/fave" on everyone who does so on my uploaded commission works nor so I have the urge to comment on every single submission in my list.


----------



## RedBeanViolin (Oct 9, 2012)

While normally I would just chalk this up to lazy coding like most other things on this site I've noticed, this honestly does feel like the most reasonable solution to this problem right now. There are spammers on FA, there are flooders on FA and they are very annoying. Even if FA did decide to make it so this didn't apply to your own submissions (and they never will) Mass watcher thanking and mass replying are something that are still going to be issues with front pages since (back to lazy coding) FA doesn't let you respond to anything on your own front page like a comment. So you are now going to other people's pages anyways so the spam guard will still apply to you. Auctions will still have this issue because you are never bidding on your OWN page, you are bidding on someone else's page so the spam guard will still apply to you. Really, the only thing you can now do with this "solution" is to mass copy-pasta "thanks" on image comments, which, in my opinion, is an acceptable sacrifice if it means we don't have to start typing confirmation captcha codes into every comment we want to post. The solution looks good on paper but sort of falls apart in practice.

As for auctions, there is a simple solution to avoid these issues and something I already do regardless out of my dislike for snipers. Start suggesting to artists that they add a 5 minute snipe guard to their auctions. This makes it so the auction is automaticly extended 5 minutes past the last bid. No one can come in at the last minute and snipe interested bidders, bidding ends when bidders want it to end (like irl auctions) and the spam guard won't stop people from being able to bid. Auctions are a big part of what people do here and I think disregarding them because this is an "art site" is stupid. I think it is personally reasonable to develop features for your users that better enable them to do what they want to do with your site. Like the commission pages that FA will never finish fixing.


----------



## Fluffy10 (Jan 19, 2013)

I feel that 60 seconds is a bit long. I understand the point behind this, but I really dont think it should be any longer than a 10-20 second wait. Otherwise, it just takes *forever* to upload pictures now...


----------



## Erethzium (Jan 19, 2013)

Oh boo hoo, you have to wait 10 seconds between each comment you make. That's such a horribly long time to wait! D: D: D: D: D:

Deal with it, honestly.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Jan 20, 2013)

I think it's 5 now


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 20, 2013)

Seems they caved into the public complaints now 

If true on what Pheagle said, is it because popufurs complained they got what they wanted? Or something else?


----------



## Fluffy10 (Jan 20, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> I think it's 5 now


Nope. Its still a 60 second wait. Im sure it works fine for "comments".

But for posting pictures? One photo a minute? Please....


----------



## DragonTalon (Jan 21, 2013)

Glaice said:


> Seems they caved into the public complaints now
> 
> If true on what Pheagle said, is it because popufurs complained they got what they wanted? Or something else?



Seems to me they added flood protection, saw that it was catching legitimate users and dialed it back so it works as intended. 

That's not caving, that's tweaking a new feature.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Jan 21, 2013)

Fluffy10 said:


> Nope. Its still a 60 second wait. Im sure it works fine for "comments".
> 
> But for posting pictures? One photo a minute? Please....



I was talking about commenting being 5 instead of 10

As for pictures, I found the easiest way to get around the wait is to duplicate the Submit page in you browser (Duplicate Tab) but I only did that because I was submitting a sequence and the site wasn't exactly loading very quickly in the first place.


----------



## Fluffy10 (Jan 21, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> I was talking about commenting being 5 instead of 10
> 
> As for pictures, I found the easiest way to get around the wait is to duplicate the Submit page in you browser (Duplicate Tab) but I only did that because I was submitting a sequence and the site wasn't exactly loading very quickly in the first place.


Tried that already. Didnt work. So Im assuming that they "fixed" that part of it.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Jan 22, 2013)

Well I mean, a photo a minute isn't that long of a wait...how many photos do you usually post at once anyway?


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 24, 2013)

Quality over quantity.


----------



## Smelge (Jan 24, 2013)

Fluffy10 said:


> Nope. Its still a 60 second wait. Im sure it works fine for "comments".
> 
> But for posting pictures? One photo a minute? Please....



Yes, we should have a multi-uploader. And more photos. And lets change the name to FurtoBucket.

Or you could stop whining, stop submitting photos with no description and work with it. If it's a sequence, put in the First, Next and Last script so people can better browse it, rather than you just trying to flood the front page with your shit and wipe off anything anybody else has submitted.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Jan 24, 2013)

There's always going to be one Flood they can't protect agianst no matter how hard they try- me.


----------



## Fenrari (Jan 24, 2013)

The new one for images is really getting old. I'm not flooding the system. I'm just uploading pictures from FurCon. :/ And yes I have quite a few pictures that I plan to upload.


----------



## Kayla (Jan 25, 2013)

10 seconds isn't all that long.


----------



## Miles-za (Jan 27, 2013)

The only problems I have ever encoutered with the 10 seconds limit on a forum is when somebody right besides me is on the same forum. Else I have to take more than 10 seconds between comments.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 28, 2013)

If it's 10 seconds, I don't see much why OP is complaining with it reduced.


----------

