We’ve had to create a new sidebar rule, we won’t be enacting it retroactively because that just doesn’t seem fair, but going forward:
- Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
IDK, if this community has any hope of being anywhere near as comprehensive in coverage as the News Subreddits were its going to take some superusers.
A super user is not a spammer.
If you think that 19 is a lot of news articles for the whole planet in a single day, enough that it counts as spam, then my friend have I got news for you :-(
19 isn’t a lot for the planet, but it is a lot for a single user.
We’d rather the front page be representative of what MULTIPLE people think is important, not just one person, otherwise we might as well just turn it over to a bot pulling from the Google News algorithm.
I agree one person can’t properly sample the world stage of news.
I left Reddit on purpose.
I would rather have quality than volume.
I would rather my news feed be diverse than dominated by one or two self-appointed influencers of discourse. (Even if they have good intentions.)
I approve of this rule. Ten articles per person each day is more than enough at this stage, and the threshold for “too much” can always be adjusted as the community grows.
The only reason they might dominate is because they do the posting. Anyone can make a post, if other people aren’t posting it seems silly to penalize the ones who are, spam excluded.
I suppose that’s an easy statement to agree with. However, a sensible rate limit is not a penalty.
I understand your sentiment, but I think u/jordonlund is right.
When someone posts nineteen articles, they’re likely posting everything that they’re seeing, and not even finishing articles. There’s no selection process. They’re not picking good articles, they’re just acting on reflex.
Articles should be posted because a reader actually thought that they were uniquely valuable.
I don’t think the requirements should be so stringent. Anyone with an RSS reader knows you can at least skim hundreds of articles per day. They shouldn’t have to be the best or most valuable, the only hurdle an article must clear is that it is interesting enough that someone wanted to post it. Then it’s up to community voting to sift through and promote the best ones.
I get why these mods didn’t like that users posts but this is such a dumb way to to put in a prevention rule. Especially when they even admit it wasn’t spam.
Why artificially limit how much people can interact to get traffic to a community?
Just like if you saw the front page filled only with articles from the same source, seeing the front page filled with posts by the same username gives the impression that someone is pushing an agenda.
I mentioned this myself in a post I made regarding Myanmar, I have a personal angle on that and if it seems like I yammer on too much about Myanmar, feel free to tell me to shut up. :)
I saw different sources but feels more like a lack of others posting issue rather than just someone pushing an agenda
There’s the downvote button, why not let users decide?
Sorted by “New”, the front page would still be dominated by submissions from a single user.
This community censors Al Jazeera posts by calling them “duplicates” and leaves up the least anti-Israel post.
I highly doubt it cares about being comprehensive in coverage
Removed by mod