Some people make three word answers, so-called, to hundreds of questions a day, cluttering up the site and making it hard to find the worthwhile answers.
Why not a reasonable daily limit on how many q's that can be answered? The limit on questions is 5 a day, and there isn't the same problem with questions. At times , I want to ask more, but I have to wait.
I'd suggest 15 a day...
Maybe 20 a day, tops. Beyond that, people are just wasting our time with useless three word answers on most days. ANd if, like me, there might be a given day you run out of your quota, there's always tomorrow...
OK, maybe 25. People who do more than that not only don't give any helpful advice, but they discourage everyone else because we have to wade through all the useless Amazon card-grubbing 'answers' to get something worthwhile, since there are probably 10 or so of these 3 word answer champions, and most of them show up on nearly every question, taking up space.
There may be a few people who actually make good answers and exceed 25, but their quality would increase, the site would benefit
I don't think so. I rarely exceed your suggested 25 a day opinion quota, but I don't think it would be too far fetched to say that I have on occasion. I think the problem arises with the assumption that people use the site daily. I certainly don't. I come on here when I have free time, and spend it answering, or posting opinions, in bulk where I can say something helpful or just have an opinion on the matter. Having a limit on living opinions would make it much harder to use the site that way.
There's also the possibility of someone having very insightful, and helpful advice to post and not being able to do so. Coming back a day later to do so isn't always practical, and let's face it, the search Tool would pretty much make it impossible, and an anonymous question couldn't even get that advice through a message.
Yes, spam can be annoying, but isn't that what mods are for, to spot the spam and the trolls? Too many rules around here and they start to overrule the fun.
People earn gift certificates on here, so they need at least 30 questions a day so no and i don't know why there would need to be a limit lol, i worked it out and even if for us in the UK it's not worth it (we only get £13 for 5,000 xper point, i know it blows), but to get 5,000 you'd need to do 30 questions every day for like 3 months so there is no limiting it for people who do think it's worth it, if you limit it then i doubt it's gonna be worth it at all... especialyl just for £13, i think it's too much xper for £13 so i don't do it but when i do have enough at some point i'll claim it because i can, i'm sure others do the same.
If there were limits for that too... I'd probably be long gone... Or wouldn't answer hardly any questions at all - since then I'd look for the ones I can give the most specific answers to, hence end up not answering any for fear of not being able to answer those I could help the most.
There shouldn't be a limit on questions posed, either, but through search engine combine the questions already asked and if the same exists, not let the new question be posted, or rename the title of the question regarding to it's (his or her) specific situation.
Nah, I don't know about that. While I agree that there's certainly an issue with idiots posting unhelpful answers, or the usual suspects with their unfunny jokes, I feel imposing an automatic limit on posts would just limit many peoples enjoyment of the site. Not every question needs a huge answer, or has room to expand into a larger dialogue.
Plus, what if I'm just really into GAG one day, and I find a lot of questions that resonate with me over the course of a day, then I realise I'm running out of responses and have to start being selective. No thanks, just doesn't seem reasonable. It's a public forum - the unhelpfuls are just part of the scenery.
No but id see nothing wrong with eliminating "first opinion XP." When they had a bigger bonus for XP I saw people abusing that and eventually the site lowered the bonus. But limiting opinions wouldn't solve people giving bad ones.
There are limits but you must "work hard" to reach them. The contradiction is of course: the longer people are on the site the more publicity they pick up so the more of the publicity messages reach their public... and that's good for the future of GAG, more revenue. On the other hand, indeed, you risk to blow up the site if people just post by the dozen!
I'd say maybe put a minimum limit to how many words you can say. maybe make it I don't know 7-10 minimum? ... then again sometimes short sweet answers are just as good. I can see were you are coming from though.