1

When I tried to submit a post, it showed me the following error:

Oops! Your question couldn't be submitted because:  
• We're sorry, but as a spam prevention mechanism, new users can only post
a maximum of two hyperlinks. Earn more than 10 reputation to post more hyperlinks. 
• We're sorry, but as a spam prevention mechanism, new users aren't
allowed to post images. Earn more than 10 reputation to post images.

In my opinion, it would make sense if you guys put the new user's post to the approval process (moderation) rather restricting them from contributing with (perhaps) a valued piece of information. Somewhere in between the lines of:

Oops! Your question is awaiting moderation because:  
• We're sorry, but as a spam prevention mechanism, new users can not submit an 
unsupervised post, if it contains more than two hyperlinks. Earn more than 10
reputation to post without hindrance.
• We're sorry, but as a spam prevention mechanism, new users can not submit an 
unsupervised post, if it contains image(s). Earn more than 10 reputation to post
without hindrance. 
  • 1
  • I like the idea. But currently there's no system in place to do this as it needs a separate queue from the edit queue. So I think this will be rejected for technical reasons. – Mysticial Jul 1 '12 at 23:40
  • 1
  • 2
    @Mysticial Theoretically (and I'm not committing to anything here), we could implement another queue. It's a technical limitation, but we do have a very capable dev team. :) – Adam Lear Jul 1 '12 at 23:41
  • 1
    @AnnaLear I'm aware of that. :) Though me thinks dev time could better spent on other things. – Mysticial Jul 1 '12 at 23:42
  • @AnnaLear: Why don't we just throw things like this into the Suggested Edits queue? – user102937 Jul 1 '12 at 23:49
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey It's not an edit, for one thing, so it'd need some special handling (for example, the reject reasons would need to be different), but in principle... yeah, that could work. That's an implementation detail. I think we can discuss the meat of the feature request itself without worrying about that too much. – Adam Lear Jul 1 '12 at 23:51
  • 1
    @AnnaLear - I suggest posting the question, but suppressing the links/images until approved. In other words, don't hold the entire question back simply because there's a link. This would also get the question exposure by users with rights to approve it, so it would either be quickly approved or quickly dealt with. – jmort253 Jul 1 '12 at 23:53
  • 1
    Well, users can always ask for assistance to get the pictures "upgraded" by a community user with edit privileges. I can't imagine why any new user would need more than two hyperlinks. – user102937 Jul 1 '12 at 23:53
  • @Mysticial, thanks for weighing in. Even without implementing the other queue, don't you think down voting the inappropriate post is sufficient? After all, the ultimate aim is to make the users familiar so they abide by the rules in future. Moreover, if the user is already a citizen of stackexchange network, posting a comment on other website (such as meta) shouldn't have these restrictions. – vulcan raven Jul 1 '12 at 23:54
  • 1
    What we don't want is someone spamming the site with porn and such. That's why the block is there in the first place. Once you reach 200 rep on any site, you will automatically get 100 rep on every other site. So that bypasses this restriction. (because you're a "trusted" Stack Exchange user) – Mysticial Jul 1 '12 at 23:57
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey I hear Skeptics runs into this, cause they have citation requirements that trip up new users. Though perhaps this is more for answers than questions. – Adam Lear Jul 2 '12 at 0:03
  • This might work a bit better if the user was asked to confirm whether they want it to undergo moderation, or if they just want to remove the extra content. Maybe? – yoozer8 Jul 2 '12 at 0:51
  • @AnnaLear If you want to add it to a queue, you could just break links and images from new users and auto-generate a suggested edit that puts them back in. But the argument I got when trying to get the annoying link restrictions removed for Skeptics the last time was some mythical link-stuffing spam that is prevented by those restrictions. – Mad Scientist Jul 2 '12 at 6:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138349/using-multiple-hyperlinks-and-image-restriction-for-new-users?noredirect=1
meta.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-29
130588
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XBSIIAEFUY5DQ2EYWOHGREFITDULY3MG
<urn:uuid:b709dded-e1a8-4414-926e-5c1c52f629a4>
2020-07-10T12:47:26Z
151.101.129.69
text/html
sha1:6L3NZ5ZID7ONBQG33A6R3JVE3SWYODDB
<urn:uuid:ebaf95f6-d876-477f-a1a7-0c85c8270e91>
https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/138349/using-multiple-hyperlinks-and-image-restriction-for-new-users?noredirect=1
response
<urn:uuid:e147d7e9-51b5-420b-9e8a-900e0bfca54c>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-29
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-21.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/