Tedster
10-25-2005, 09:55 AM
can we cut down the 75 second posting time. Quite often I have to wait from thread to thread..
20 or 30 seconds would be more reasonable.
20 or 30 seconds would be more reasonable.
Read with Formatting |
Join TechSpot! (it's free) |
Bookmark / Share this
posting time
|
Tedster 10-25-2005, 09:55 AM can we cut down the 75 second posting time. Quite often I have to wait from thread to thread.. 20 or 30 seconds would be more reasonable. pkroks 10-25-2005, 10:57 AM you must have a damn fast internet connection then. probably a good idea though... :grinthumb Ad 10-25-2005, 10:57 AM poertner_1274 10-25-2005, 11:01 AM This is in place to keep people from posting a bunch of 1 line responses to multiple threads. It used to be 30 seconds if I remember correctly. Which I think was ample time, 75 seconds is quite a long time to wait to make a reply, IMO howard_hopkinso 10-25-2005, 12:15 PM I can`t actually say that it`s ever really been a problem to me. Not that I post a great deal :p Regards Howard :) :) Nodsu 10-25-2005, 01:32 PM I've run into this barrier a couple of times. Mind you, it takes only a single one-liner - I make a long post and a short one right after only to be told to wait. It's a tad annoying but I think it is better to wait and think whether what you just said is worth anything than just fire away short useless stuff. Tedster 10-25-2005, 02:07 PM I have broadband - 5gb throughput per sec.. :suspiciou but 75 sec is a long time..... maybe 45 sec would be a good compromise. pkroks 10-25-2005, 02:48 PM damn, in zambia the fastest internet offered is 512Kb Radio Link... it costs 25 000 000.00 Kwacha a month which is approximately US$5000,00 per month. I am sitting on a 64Kbps radio link, its about US$500 per month and it doesn't get capped if you wanna download stuff... wish i could get the 512 but its a tad bit expensive. :( Didou 10-25-2005, 05:40 PM We've discussed it quite a bit already Tedster & to be honest, there's very little chance it will go down. Some people (like moderators) have to go through most if not all posts to make sure they don't break any rules. If the timeout option can make some people think twice before posting, it's a good thing as far as I can see it. Tedster 10-25-2005, 09:06 PM damn, in zambia the fastest internet offered is 512Kb Radio Link... it costs 25 000 000.00 Kwacha a month which is approximately US$5000,00 per month. I am sitting on a 64Kbps radio link, its about US$500 per month and it doesn't get capped if you wanna download stuff... wish i could get the 512 but its a tad bit expensive. :( I pay about $65.00 a month for this service plus I get cable TV (analog) along with it. Most places around here have free wireless. (coffeeshops) I live too far away to get a good signal plus the radar from the Army base jams signals. But I know in Africa and India wireless is becoming very popular. pzero 11-05-2005, 05:16 PM This is basically an anti-flooding measure, too many posts could cause the server to fall over. Has nothing to do with how fast you can access the internet. Ad 11-05-2005, 05:16 PM Tedster 11-05-2005, 06:06 PM I never said internet connection speed had anything to do with posting. I was complaining about the time it took to post messages after another. I've been online since 300 bps modems were all the rage. pzero 11-06-2005, 04:43 AM I never said internet connection speed had anything to do with posting. I was complaining about the time it took to post messages after another. I've been online since 300 bps modems were all the rage. I didn't actually quote anyone. Tedster 11-06-2005, 10:27 AM um... look three messages down..... you mentioned connecting to the internet.... pzero 11-06-2005, 11:08 AM um... look three messages down..... you mentioned connecting to the internet.... I didn't directly quote anyone, like I am doing now. pkroks 11-06-2005, 02:48 PM yea but we all got the drift of your post... i still think they should cut the time down a bit... poertner_1274 11-06-2005, 04:44 PM Enough already Thread closed |
|