Removing the "questions per day" limit: a proposal.

Stuart Allsop wrote:



In any event, enough bitching: On to my proposal: I'd like to suggest that, since the purpose of the rule is to prevent abuse, and since actively helpful members are not the abusers, why not implement a simple system whereby those members who DO participate actively in answering questions, earn the right to ask more questions themselves?

Stuart Allsop wrote:

I recently refused to renew my Platinum membership in protest against what I consider to be the ridiculous "15 questions per day" limit for platinum members, and the arbitrary decision to impose this rule on platinum members DURING their existing period, rather than upon renewal, which would have been the ethical thing to do.

Stuart Allsop wrote:
I do understand the need for limits on non-paying members, who often cluttered up the system with numerous questions, in some cases practically posting their entire document in the hopes of getting a free translation! I have no real beef against that, but even so the new limits do seem a little harsh for new members, and do make non-paying membership rather less attractive than it used to be.

Stuart Allsop wrote:
However, I do strongly disagree with placing limits on PAYING members, particularly at the highest level of membership, and ESPECIALLY in the case those who have never abused the system. By limiting everyone like this, you are punishing the offenders as well as the innocent.
I would therefore like to propose a solution.
Please don’t misunderstand me: Personally, I have never needed to ask more than 15 questions in a day, but I have seen others do so, and I can envision that it might be necessary for me one day, due to the method that I use when translating complex documents (especially when they are poorly written): I often simply sideline “tough” terms while I am working, just marking them in the text and carrying on with the translation in order to not interrupt my concentration and work flow at that moment, then when I've finished the first draft, I go back and check all those terms at once before I start on my corrections and proof reading. So I could conceivably accumulate 15 questions in a document over a few days, and need to ask them all over a span of a few hours or so. Like I said, I've never accumulated more than maybe 10 or 12, but it is possible that one day I might end up with more than 15.

Stuart Allsop wrote:
Besides, I simply object to the idea of placing limits on paying customers, where there were no limits before!
In any event, enough bitching: On to my proposal: I'd like to suggest that, since the purpose of the rule is to prevent abuse, and since actively helpful members are not the abusers, why not implement a simple system whereby those members who DO participate actively in answering questions, earn the right to ask more questions themselves?
For example, start with the same base limit of 15 per day, but if a member is actively answering questions all the time, then increase that limit proportional to how many he answers per month, and DECREASE that limit if he NEVER answers questions.
up with more than 15.

Stuart Allsop wrote:
Alternatively, to make it even easier, set a 10-per-day limit as a baseline for everyone, but also take into account the total number of questions that they have answered, less the total number they have asked. So if you try to ask more than 10 questions in a day, the system then checks if you have answered more questions than you have asked, and if so allows your additional questions. If you ask more than answer, you only get 15. If you answer more than ask, you get unlimited questions.
This way, those Platinum members who only join in order to be "parasites" on the rest of the community, and never bother helping out other members by actually answering questions, will be stuck with the limit, while those who do spend the time to help their peers, will be rewarded in kind, and allowed to ask the questions they need to ask.
Either of these systems would be a VERY simple algorithm to implement, especially the second alternative, since it doesn’t need to keep track of any additional information at all: Everything it needs is already in the data base. It simply calculates “ANSWERED” - “ASKED”, and if the result is greater than zero, you get a green light. VERY simple.

Sure, some determined abuser could try to fool the system by just posting any old junk answer to a few questions in order to build up his “answered” score, but I reckon he would soon tire of having to take the trouble to do that, and in any event it would VERY soon be spotted, so moderators could take appropriate action.

I think this would be a fair and just system for preventing abuse, while also not punishing sincere Platinum members who really do participate, and at the same time it is very simple to implement.

Perhaps a similar system with lower limits could even be introduced for non-paying members, to encourage them to join once again. After all, the real purpose of these new limits was to prevent abuse, and not to discourage potential new non-paying members from joining, or even worse, as in my case, to discourage PAYING members from NOT renewing…

Stuart Allsop wrote:
This way, those Platinum members who only join in order to be "parasites" on the rest of the community, and never bother helping out other members by actually answering questions, will be stuck with the limit, while those who do spend the time to help their peers, will be rewarded in kind, and allowed to ask the questions they need to ask.

Sure, some determined abuser could try to fool the system by just posting any old junk answer to a few questions in order to build up his “answered” score, but I reckon he would soon tire of having to take the trouble to do that, and in any event it would VERY soon be spotted, so moderators could take appropriate action.

Stuart Allsop wrote:

I'd like to suggest that, since the purpose of the rule is to prevent abuse, and since actively helpful members are not the abusers, why not implement a simple system whereby those members who DO participate actively in answering questions, earn the right to ask more questions themselves?