Discourse is rude to new users, not enough posting powers

forum-bug
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f7f722b0e78>

(Michael Wood-Vasey) #1

[Update: Thanks @ktl, I am now allowed to provide useful information.]

I would have posted the URLs for the fix and pull request but Discourse only allows me to post 2 URLs in a thread because I just joined and am an unwashed “New user”.

This seems a bit rude to new users, who are likely going to be very active on the discussion topic they joined to report.


Stack Compatibility with OS X Package Managers
(Jonathan Sick) #2

I’m sorry you find Discourse to be “rude” in your initial interactions. I think Discourse is expecting new users to read a bit on the site and gain trust that way rather than diving into posting. Clearly that’s not always the case for people switching over from HipChat. I’ve bumped the number of links a new user can make to 10; allow for 2 images and 2 attachments. It exposes us to more spam, but that’s not a real problem so far.

For the 3 reply limit, I’d encourage you to edit your posts instead of replying to yourself with a new posting. The limit is defined as “3 replies until someone replies to you” so the discourse developers intended it as a limit to stop a newcomers from taking over a thread.


(Michael Wood-Vasey) #3

"3 replies until someone replies to you"
wasn’t the behavior observed.

Unless the limits are <3 rather than <=3.


(Jonathan Sick) #4

I agree the original topic didn’t seem to follow that behaviour. I’ll have to set up some test accounts to get a full sense of the Discourse logic.


(Jonathan Sick) #5

To address your original issue, I have

  1. Increased the number of posts a new user can make until someone replies back to them to be 5
  2. Increased number of links a new user can add to 10
  3. Increased number of images a new user can add to 2
  4. Increased number of attachments a new user can add to 2

This way a new user won’t have to wait and build up a reading history before being given fairly functional posting powers. This should solve your issue and make it easier for new users in the future who have a similar use case.

There is greater exposure to spam under these rules, so once spam becomes an issue I may have to revisit our implementation of the trust system.

For reference: DM-3763