By in Random

How long should we force someone to wait between articles?

Today we implemented something that we have been saying we were going to do for a while. We have implemented a mandatory minimum of 30 minutes between postings. The original poll which was before a lot of changes and new members joined the site. I personally feel its too long, and Heather ( MaeLou ) agrees but we went with what the majority of the people voted for last time. Well, I want to open it up again in light of our growth and new members to get their feedback. The intention is to prevent spamming of the front page with 15 different articles from a single user. We all know this policy will eventually be on its way out, especially when we get to a certain size then it won't matter what the time difference is the front page will always be changing. But until then... we feel a small delay will help the site. Maybe not 30 minutes, but something. Do you think its too long? What would you set it at?

5 Minutes

5 votes / 7% 5 votes / 7 %

10 Minutes

27 votes / 40% 27 votes / 40 %

15 Minutes

15 votes / 22% 15 votes / 22 %

20 Minutes

1 votes / 1% 1 votes / 1 %

30 Minutes

17 votes / 25% 17 votes / 25 %

Other please explain below

2 votes / 2% 2 votes / 2 %
This poll has received 67 vote(s) so far.

You will need an account to comment - feel free to register or login.

Comments

momathome wrote on June 24, 2014, 10:56 PM

As you know, I typically wait until my last post has a certain number of likes, to keep my posts from being buried. On Bubblews that is at least 20 likes, here I've been a little lax since there are not as many users, but I think that 30 minutes is a very good waiting time and it will benefit not just the site but the individual writer as well so that their posts have time to be seen and not be buried as quickly in their archives.

Ruby3881 wrote on June 24, 2014, 11:41 PM

I really don't think 30 minutes is a horribly long wait. I think it benefits the site to see more variety coming up on the front page. I also think it's good for people to be encouraged to either put more thought into their posts or to take the time to interact.

I totally understand that some people will produce a large volume of quality posts in a short time frame, but I'd rather see a certain privilege (like posting at ten minute intervals, scheduling posts, etc.) be extended to those users who have proven they won't flood the site with garbage posts, than to open things up too quickly with new members coming into our community. Let's not be too hasty to get rid of the existing precautions, especially while we're trying to build the reputation of PP and gain better advertising opportunities.

Ravenmount wrote on June 25, 2014, 12:26 AM

I don't know if it would be possible to set the system so that the 30 minute delay only kicks in after every other post. It could even be an hour delay at that point, but that way we could make two posts within a shorter amount of time (which means we don't have to be coming back every 30 minutes to post, if we have two things we wanted to publish). I have a lot of other things going on during the day, and being able to post more than one item during a visit to the site means I don't have to be constantly jumping back and forth between sites and projects if I have a couple posts I wanted to publish here.

poddys wrote on June 25, 2014, 1:49 AM

I think 10 minutes is good personally, it should ensure a reasonable gap between posts from the same person (allows them time to compose the next post, or it's short enough for them to spend 10 minutes viewing their friends posts and commenting). The latter I think could be a good side-effect. With enough people posting it ought not to be a problem, just need to grow the numbers.

africanpen wrote on June 25, 2014, 3:06 AM

I do not think that will help at all. we are all unique. I prefer to post three to four in five minute and read for the next 20 to 30 minutes.Do not put too many rules here to frustrate the system. Better still give us a system that allows us to determine when our posts should be published as is done for text messaging. Where one can determine the day and time of the day that a text message should reach its recipient

africanpen wrote on June 25, 2014, 3:11 AM

The rule of posting 15 is enough. Let us assume that some one for one reason or the other has been absent the whole day and comes fifteen minutes to the end of the day. If you further restrict that person to say 1 post every 5 or 10 minutes you kill the person's initiative and zeal.All ready many have become dormant and such a change may further worsen the case. Though people seem to be voting one can not tell if they actually mean what they vote for or whether they are only interested in point accumulation

bestwriter wrote on June 25, 2014, 5:26 AM

Being allowed to create 15 posts and giving 30 minutes between posts would mean being here most part of one's working hours.

bestwriter wrote on June 25, 2014, 5:41 AM

Finally, I think it should be left to the discretion of individual members as each one works differently here.

AdrienneJenkins wrote on June 25, 2014, 6:58 AM

I second this notion. "Do not put too many rules here to frustrate the system".

AdrienneJenkins wrote on June 25, 2014, 6:59 AM

Yup, yup.

AdrienneJenkins wrote on June 25, 2014, 7:04 AM

OTHER sounded unglamorous so I voted 5 minutes. Some people might assume other meant MORE TIME like 40 minutes or an hour. I wanted a ZERO minutes option for the poll. I'd rather the worry time be spent on issues like monetizing the site instead of this minor programming change we know will go away over time.

WHAT'S THE PRIMARY CONCERN ON THIS SITE? Really. For many current and future members. Making money. So given the limited time there is a day, it doesn't matter how much content is choked just 'cause some people are worried about front page hogging.

THE ISSUE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. More content means more money. So why would you (we) do anything to discourage this practice?

LadyDuck wrote on June 25, 2014, 7:55 AM

Even if I think that 30 minutes is not so long, I judge that 5 or 10 minutes it's too little. You risk to see on the home page a list of posts from the same writer, that is not the best thing. I think that to cut in half the actual waiting to 15 minutes should be a good waiting time.

paperdaisyflower7 wrote on June 25, 2014, 8:00 AM

10 min is too fast I think 30 is just right

MaeLou wrote on June 25, 2014, 9:04 AM

I know there are some that absolutely hate any time limit, but I think that having it is not only important to prevent you from looking like a spammy person but if you post articles back to back, they wont all get attention. People will see in their notifications that you went post crazy and they will either skip you altogether or pick one and ignore all the rest. You want all of your posts to get attention. You'll earn more in the long run that way.

That said, I think 10 minutes is reasonable.

SandraLynn wrote on June 25, 2014, 9:07 AM

I voted and I said my piece in a post, got some more folks over here, YAY. We are talkin'!!! I love this place emoticon :heart:

momathome wrote on June 25, 2014, 10:35 AM

AdrienneJenkins I understand your point completely. I don't have any issue whatsoever as far as waiting to post but that is mainly because I would anyway. You know the 'tricks' I do with mine so I hold off on my own account. I actually have a couple of drafts saved right now but I won't post those until the likes on my last post have reached at least 8. On Bubblews I wait until 20 but we have more members on there than on here so I adjusted it, lol.

momathome wrote on June 25, 2014, 10:39 AM

MaeLou I agree with you although I do this myself anyway. I set a standard to reach before posting my next post (on Bubblews that's 20 likes on here its 8).

On the other hand, if they decide to do 5 in an hour, eventually they will determine that it is affecting and hurting their overall results and they will stop, so it's kind of a tit for tat situation. I made the same mistake when I first started writing for Bubblews and would submit a bunch back to back. My income on the site dramatically increased once I started setting my own spacing standards.

MaeLou wrote on June 25, 2014, 10:57 AM

I know some wanted to stop the restriction of the articles. I don't think you guys realize we have to go through all of those articles manually at pay out. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to go through 50 posts just from a single day, and yes, I do believe that some people would be crazy enough to come up with something to write about just to get every cent they can. I agree that everyone needs money but I certainly can't go through a massive amount of posts just for ONE single person. I am only human, and unless you guys want like a month wait for pay out, then I think having restrictions is best. People DO abuse systems. We DO need that limitation.

Susie wrote on June 25, 2014, 2:06 PM

That would be a big task to go through huge amounts of posts. I think whatever works for you best now, and as time progresses. You will know what is too much to do for yourself.

SandraLynn wrote on June 25, 2014, 3:41 PM

That's my whole point, too, actually. No one should be able to get a decent post up in 10 minutes. Unless they've written ahead, as some like to do. Putting it at 10 will at least get us in to begin a new post.

And ANYway, this hopefully VERY VERY SOON, lol, will be a moot point as more folks join. The peeps who don't realize the pay cut they are taking by posting too quickly...well...acck. For now though? Even I'm getting tired of seein' my name all over the front page, lol. I'm done for the day, posting wise anyway. I'll read through the evening, as usual, from the phone :)

AdrienneJenkins wrote on June 26, 2014, 8:40 AM

Came to see the final tally. I had written a long editorial then my browser got stuck. I'm seeing that less than 10 is winning out plus perhaps other? Makes it about the majority. Cool. Cool. Ready to move on.....6 posts an hour. Sounds like plenty of time.