|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 120 seconds????
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
This;
quote:
Sorry, but we cannot process your request. The board administrator has determined that at least 120 seconds is the minimum time it takes to write a meaningful contribution.
I got that when I pressed the 'send' button on a PM which took me a heck of a lot longer than 120 secs to write - given I was doing it bit by bit while also watching a TV programme over the last hour. Not to mention that rather than a board post this was a PM where one would have thought a short response could actually be thoroughly meaningful.
This is not the first time I've had this response when it seemed wildly inappropriate.
Any idea from Hosts/Admin what is going on here.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The software doesn't distinguish between different types of messages - so both private and public messages are subject to the same flood control restriction.
As to why it kicks in when the time since last post is significantly more than two minutes, I haven't a clue. It's one of those quirks of the software.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
If I write anything long for the Ship, I do it in Word first so I don't run the risk of losing it all through an upload glitch.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Me too Eutychus; but this wasn't that long a message, just that writing it was spread over a long period - which had me wondering how on earth the Ship could be imposing a 120-sec rule on it.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Have mercy on the poor Ship's software. Everyone knows time slows down when doing something unpleasant.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That happened to me, too, a couple times-/ I was getting flood control messages when I made my first post of the day. When O asked how the system worked, Erin said something about possible glitches in the way the system was reading ISP address that were similar.
What RooK said, pretty much.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MaryLouise
Shipmate
# 18697
|
Posted
A little mortified to spoil a good thread. I posted got the 120 seconds message, waited and posted again. The same message so waited for longer and posted again. Then saw two messages posted so deleted one and posted an explanation. Ended up with four posts.
--------------------
“As regards plots I find real life no help at all. Real life seems to have no plots.”
-- Ivy Compton-Burnett
Posts: 646 | From: Cape Town | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Mary Louise, if you wait out the time and click on the reload button it will probably tell you that the board has already used your submission - saving you the apparent need to repost.
It just happened again; this time to a message which had definitely taken several minutes to write, but only a few seconds to post because I composed it offline and pasted it in. Apparently the Ship system can't tell the difference between taking only a few seconds to write, or taking several minutes to write and then posting it more-or-less instantaneously!
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Apparently the Ship system can't tell the difference between taking only a few seconds to write, or taking several minutes to write and then posting it more-or-less instantaneously!
No, Steve, it can't. And that's the whole point - to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot.
Did you honestly think that we have the required delay specifically to inconvenience regular posters? Well, I might, perhaps. But most of the Crew are actually rather pleasant and kind.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Rook;
quote:
No, Steve, it can't. And that's the whole point - to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot.
Point taken; and if I hadn't been concentrating more on the content of my posts I'd have realised that one myself. But my original query is more about occasions when I've definitely taken longer than the 120 seconds and have still got that response.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Rook;
quote:
No, Steve, it can't. And that's the whole point - to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot.
Point taken; and if I hadn't been concentrating more on the content of my posts I'd have realised that one myself. But my original query is more about occasions when I've definitely taken longer than the 120 seconds and have still got that response.
Me too. Shit happens. It ain't personal.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
to minimize the harm inflicted by the rapid posting of a malicious spam bot
O Rly.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, really.
And, we have more than one example (ie: not the event I think you're referencing). It was only a few weeks ago that I last blocked a spammer, though it is much less problematic than 10 years ago.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Also: totally Pyx_e's fault. Because that's a hilarious joke to perpetuate.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
I could do it again. But my next ban will be forever so. They tried to make repost but I said no no no.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I think I had a brain aneurism forcing myself not to alter your post into something truly awful, setting me up for a hy∙lar∙ee∙ous response.
Alas. I didn't need those brain cells any more anyway. They just interfered with my parenting.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
Less of a software quirk and more of a feature. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I could do it again. But my next ban will be forever so.
So, how many bans are allowed before resurrection is not allowed? My exhaustive search of 30 sec. didn't reveal this info. Not that this is a goal, I've managed not to be banned even once. Yet.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, how many bans are allowed before resurrection is not allowed?
Quantitatively, most bans are final and without any resurrections. But resurrections are possible and do happen very occasionally. The vast majority of those are one-time deals, with the condition that they're officially working on borrowed time and that the tolerance threshold for problems is extremely low going forward. However, the record so far is 8 resurrections. Bet you can't guess who.
quote:
I've managed not to be banned even once.
Chicken?
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
I've managed not to be banned even once.
Chicken?
Actually, no, I simply do not see the need for the PTB to quite for me.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
