How are my number of posts limited on OL?

[tjohnson]

It sounds like a 'moving interval'. So you can make 5 posts in any given 24 hour interval?

[merjet]

LOL, no. Your statement is the contradiction. The 60 minute game does not last for 2-3 hours. The game PLUS the time outs and other interruptions is what lasts for 2-3 hours.

It is not a contradiction. The duration can be based on two different clocks. 1. The game clock, which pauses between quarters, for time-outs, etc. 2. A normal clock that does not pause, for which the duration is the time the game ends minus the time it started.

For the limited poster, the time start is the first post that starts the 24 hour cycle. That start time is determined by the limited poster

Suppose a limited poster in a given week posts only twice: at 10:00 AM on Wednesday and 9:00 AM on Thursday. According to your view a cycle ends at 10:00 AM on Thursday. However, the software does nothing regarding this poster at 10:00 AM on Thursday, which further shows that your cycle view is an irrelevant misfit.

"No, the program looks back to enforce the limit, not forward..." (MJ)

If the program only "looks back", how does the program know when the 24 hours are up and time to deny posting access?

What a dumb question. Posting is denied when 5 posts have been made in last X hours, X being any number 24 or less. Suppose X = 10. Does a cycle end in your view? No, but the software would not allow posting, which further shows that your cycle view is an irrelevant misfit.

Posting is never denied simply because 24 hours have elapsed. Per the software 24 hours is "up" every time you give your intent to post.

It sounds like a 'moving interval'. So you can make 5 posts in any given 24 hour interval?

You have a far better grasp of the matter than Xray.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[tjohnson]

deleted, my text formatting was lost

Edited January 28, 2010 by general semanticist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It sounds like a 'moving interval'. So you can make 5 posts in any given 24 hour interval?

GS,

LOL...

I'd have to look it up, but that's almost the identical words I used right around the time when Ms. Xray first complained.

There's no way to game that system, either.

Michael

[tjohnson]

It sounds like a 'moving interval'. So you can make 5 posts in any given 24 hour interval?

GS,

LOL...

I'd have to look it up, but that's almost the identical words I used right around the time when Ms. Xray first complained.

There's no way to game that system, either.

Michael

Another way of saying it might be ; Take any 6 consecutive posts and subtract the first time from the last time and it can't be less than 24 hours. So every time you go to post it calculates the time elapsed since the 5th previous post and if < 24 hrs - no go. If >= 24 hrs - OK.

[merjet]

Another way of saying it might be ; Take any 6 consecutive posts and subtract the first time from the last time and it can't be less than 24 hours. So every time you go to post it calculates the time elapsed since the 5th previous post and if < 24 hrs - no go. If >= 24 hrs - OK.

Yes, that would achieve the same result. However, I doubt the software does that. What if the 5th previous post were several months ago?

[Xray]

It sounds like a 'moving interval'. So you can make 5 posts in any given 24 hour interval?

If the software worked correctly, that would have to be the case.

I just logged in starting a new cycle and get the info "You can make five more posts today". Wrong. For "Today" is ALWAYS the calendar day (Jan 28 until midnight, US central time). Since I HAVE already made two posts "today" (the last two out of five in my last cycle), if it allowed me to make 'five more today', the count would be at seven instead of five.

The correct info would be: you can make five posts until Jan 29, 12:59 PM (= 24 hours after this posting date where a new cycle starts).

GS,

LOL...

I'd have to look it up, but that's almost the identical words I used right around the time when Ms. Xray first complained.

There's no way to game that system, either.

Michael

Questions for Michael:

The posting date of the first post of a new cycle starts the cycle which ends 24 hours later - right?

Example:

MJ's first five-post-cycle started Jan 24, 8:31 AM - right?

Which is why the cycle ended at Jan 25, 8:31 AM - right?

MJ started a NEW cycle at Jan 25, 8:53 AM - right?

Therefore starting from Jan 25, 8:53 AM, MJ can post away his five posts in this new cycle at whatever time he chooses until 8:53 AM the next day (Jan 26) - right?

This was also GS's question to which you agreed:

GS: So you can make 5 posts in any given 24 hour interval?

MSK:

GS,

LOL...

I'd have to look it up, but that's almost the identical words I used right around the time when Ms. Xray first complained.

So you really to believe your software works as it should? If you try it out yourself, you will see it doesn't.

- Please explain why MJ, after making only two posts of his independent new cycle started at 8:53 AM 25 Jan, suddenly had to wait until he could make the remaining posts of the five cycle?

- Please also explain why the program just told me I can make 'five more posts today' (after I have already made two today). 'Today' is the calendar day - right?

- Please also explain why one can't edit the last post of the five series? Editing is not a separate post.

Cutting off the editing feature is a flaw in the software - right?

From my # 21 post:

The additional today (midnight to midnight) figuring in the calculus is what fouls it all up. It looks like one part of the software does not know what the other is doing. For in addition, it also tries to squeeze the random 24 hours cycle into a midnight to midnight frame, that is, it mixes up two different types of counting. The software wants it both ways, so to speak. Instead of deciding either on a midnight to midnight cycle or on a random 24 hours (each structure would be clear in itself), it jumbles up the elements of the two.

What is the ID of that software btw? I already asked you this question but got no reply.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Another way of saying it might be ; Take any 6 consecutive posts and subtract the first time from the last time and it can't be less than 24 hours. So every time you go to post it calculates the time elapsed since the 5th previous post and if < 24 hrs - no go. If >= 24 hrs - OK.

Yes, that would achieve the same result. However, I doubt the software does that. What if the 5th previous post were several months ago?

Well, if it was several months ago then that's >24 hrs? Not sure what you mean.

[tjohnson]

What is the ID of that software btw? I already asked you this question but got no reply.

It's on the bottom of the page, Powered By IP.Board 3.0.3 © 2010 IPS, Inc

Edited January 28, 2010 by general semanticist

[merjet]

MSK, you can remove the 5-limit on me any time. My spending any more time researching this topic would be a waste.

The following is my summary.

1. Regarding whether or not I can post (upon showing my intent), the background logic looks back 24 hours. If I have posted 5 times in that 24 hours, I can't post. Nor can I edit. Otherwise, I can post and edit any post less than one hour old. It is that simple.

2. Some messages triggered by the background logic are confusing and inconsistent with the background logic.

3. I'm confused about what conditions trigger the message "you can make 5 posts today" (maybe with a different number). I guessed it is the first time I give my intent to post on a given day (which likely means midnight to midnight, U.S. Central time). However, yesterday I saw it on the second time rather than the first. This kind of message could confuse a newbie and could be more precise when posts have been made in the last 24 hours.

4. Messages of the kind "You can make 2 more posts until Today, 08:53 AM" are correct and precise. It is based on looking back 24 hours as of 08:53 AM rather than as of "now".

Xray, if you don't like the messages, then offer to pay IPS to fix them.

You have an easy-to-understand rule the program uses for whether or not you can post. That is much more important than the messages. Get over it. Moreover, it is easy to know how many posts you have made in the last 24 hours. Click on your name, then "Find Posts", and count.

Regarding your questions in post #32, THERE ARE NO CYCLES! Stop trying to

[merjet]

Well, if it was several months ago then that's >24 hrs? Not sure what you mean.

I meant I doubt the software would look that far back in time. If, say, the 2nd most recent post was more than 24 hours old, then there is no need to look for the 5th previous one.

[tjohnson]

Well, if it was several months ago then that's >24 hrs? Not sure what you mean.

I meant I doubt the software would look that far back in time. If, say, the 2nd most recent post was more than 24 hours old, then there is no need to look for the 5th previous one.

Right, ok that's it, I'm going to write some code for it! just kidding

[merjet]

Xray is correct; some messages are wrong. Above where I am writing this is "You can make 5 more posts today." I've already posted 4 times today, so I presume that can't be true. After posting this message, I will try to add another one and expect to be blocked. I will post again if I am not blocked.

[Selene]

Damn...

There is that truism ...

a stopped watch is accurate at least twice a day....

Adam

[Xray]

I'm confused about what conditions trigger the message "you can make 5 posts today" (maybe with a different number). I guessed it is the first time I give my intent to post on a given day (which likely means midnight to midnight, U.S. Central time). However, yesterday I saw it on the second time rather than the first. This kind of message could confuse a newbie and could be more precise when posts have been made in the last 24 hours.

Indeed, a 'Today' makes no sense at all here.

There is definitively a crossover problem. When Michael placed the address of a poster in the 'five post limit per 24 hours', if the program were working correctly, "Today" would not be in ANY message to this poster.

Xray is correct; some messages are wrong. Above where I am writing this is "You can make 5 more posts today." I've already posted 4 times today, so I presume that can't be true.

So you are beginning to see the flaws in the software.

As I'm writing this, before pushing the reply button, I'm listed with '2' posts in the today's top posters section. But so far, I have only made one post today (at 5:25 AM), not two.

I have to correct myself when stating before that this software can't count to five. It's worse: it can't even count to two.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yesterday Merlin asked to be taken off the restriction, so I did it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think Xray can get around the bugs. I've encountered a few. If you make one edit you can't stick around to make another unless you hit F5. I did two posts quoting the previous post and did a spell check off the Google tool bar then couldn't get back in to continue writing, but that wasn't a problem if I hadn't quoted the previous post as in this one. That sort of thing.

--Brant

Edited January 31, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[merjet]

Indeed, a 'Today' makes no sense at all here.

There is definitively a crossover problem. When Michael placed the address of a poster in the 'five post limit per 24 hours', if the program were working correctly, "Today" would not be in ANY message to this poster.

It's you that makes no sense. While enforcing the limit -- allowing you to post or not -- is based a 24-hour lookback, the message "you can make 5 posts today" always make sense, even if you have already posted today (usual meaning). On the other hand, the message "you can make 5 more posts today" is incorrect if you have already posted today.

So you are beginning to see the flaws in the software.

"Beginning" is hogwash. I recognized flaws in the messages (based on your reporting) and some labeling well before I was subject to the 5 posts limit. However, while subject to the limit, I saw no flaws in enforcement of the limit. It works exactly like I described above (point 1, post #35).

As I'm writing this, before pushing the reply button, I'm listed with '2' posts in the today's top posters section. But so far, I have only made one post today (at 5:25 AM), not two.

I noted long ago that "today" is poor wording in that context. It should say "in the last 24 hours." You were listed with 2 posts at the time because you had made 2 in the last 24 hours (one at 1:02 PM yesterday).

I have to correct myself when stating before that this software can't count to five. It's worse: it can't even count to two.

Hogwash. I have looked at the "Today's Top 20 Posters" list several times and for different people. The number of posts made in the last 24 hours has been correct every time. Again, the label should instead be "Top 20 Posters in the last 24 hours", but the counts are correct.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I recognized flaws in the messages...

...I saw no flaws in enforcement of the limit.

Merlin,

I would have to look it up, but I essentially said the same thing right at the beginning of all this.

I will repeat the other part of what I said back then, though. I believe that Ms. Xray's true objection is that there is no way to game this system.

I believe she is used to confounding messages in general in order to game people and in this case it doesn't work. The enforcement is rock-solid, so the message flaws are really, really irritating.

It's like the program is sticking its tongue out at her and going, "Nyah nyah nyah..."

Michael

[Xray]

Indeed, a 'Today' makes no sense at all here.

There is definitively a crossover problem. When Michael placed the address of a poster in the 'five post limit per 24 hours', if the program were working correctly, "Today" would not be in ANY message to this poster.

It's you that makes no sense. While enforcing the limit -- allowing you to post or not -- is based a 24-hour lookback, the message "you can make 5 posts today" always make sense, even if you have already posted today (usual meaning).

You forget that the message always says "You can make five more posts today". So it's clearly misleading, indicating a flawed software. No use trying to play that down, error is error.

While 'misleading' software messages are a user-unfriendly annoyance here, can you imagine what would happen in case you had to operate a powerplant on a similarly flawed software?

On the other hand, the message "you can make 5 more posts today" is incorrect if you have already posted today

.

Indeed it is. And it always says that: five more posts. (see above)

So you are beginning to see the flaws in the software.

"Beginning" is hogwash. I recognized flaws in the messages (based on your reporting) and some labeling well before I was subject to the 5 posts limit. However, while subject to the limit, I saw no flaws in enforcement of the limit. It works exactly like I described above (point 1, post #35).

You admit there is wrong info given in the messages while at the same time trying to play it down. BTW, what about the program not allowing to edit the number five post in the series? Another flaw, for an edit is no separate post. And you have very well experienced that flaw in the "enforcement of the limit", haven't you? For you yourself mentioned this in a post.

As I'm writing this, before pushing the reply button, I'm listed with '2' posts in the today's top posters section. But so far, I have only made one post today (at 5:25 AM), not two.

I noted long ago that "today" is poor wording in that context. It should say "in the last 24 hours." You were listed with 2 posts at the time because you had made 2 in the last 24 hours (one at 1:02 PM yesterday).

If that is the case, the word "today" is not only poor wording - it is pure nonsense.

I have to correct myself when stating before that this software can't count to five. It's worse: it can't even count to two.

Hogwash. I have looked at the "Today's Top 20 Posters" list several times and for different people. The number of posts made in the last 24 hours has been correct every time. Again, the label should instead be "Top 20 Posters in the last 24 hours", but the counts are correct.

No, they are not correct because the term 'today' only makes sense when indicating the calendar day.

In short, the software counts something else than what it says. Not today's posts, but the posts in the last 24 hours. Geesh!

It's as nonsensical as if John (after having run ten miles on Sat Jan 30, at 2 PM), would tell Jane at 6 AM the next morning, Sun Jan 31 while the two are still in bed: "I have run 10 miles today!"

Seeing Jane's puzzled look, he tells her: "Today" means 'in the last 24 hours'. Didn't you know?"

Edited January 31, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

It proves your point...it's all subjective.

Actually, how does the wife know it is today? Today is just an arbitrary construct developed by Ayn Rand's secret time traveling Grand Architect of the universe [who was secretly her lover because he had great hands].

Adam

Edited January 31, 2010 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

What does Xray want Michael to do? She'd have room for at least two more posts a day if she'd drop this subject.

--Brant

not motivated by a desire to irritate

not motivated by a desire to always be right regardless of right

the foundation of metaphysics is not epistemology except you need the latter to get at the former

objectivism trumps subjectivism and that's a fact

questions of right and wrong do not necessarily result in subjective answers except for epistemologists like Hitler, Mao, Khan, Attila, the Pope, Anabaptists, most philosophers, et.al, but there are so many of them it's discouraging

[merjet]

You forget that the message always says "You can make five more posts today".

Hogwash. It does not always say that. I saw the message without "more" many more times than I saw it with "more".

And it always says that: five more posts. (see above)

Hogwash again.

And you have very well experienced that flaw in the "enforcement of the limit", haven't you?

No. You are hopelessly wrong.

You admit there is wrong info given in the messages while at the same time trying to play it down.

More hogwash. However, you try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You harp about messages or labels and refuse to admit that enforcing the limit and counting the top 20 posters work exactly like I said and flawlessly.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

Yes, but you are not playing fair.

You are using facts and logic and Ms. Xray, who visits reality as a tourist uses:

[Alfonso Jones]

You forget that the message always says "You can make five more posts today".

Hogwash. It does not always say that. I saw the message without "more" many more times than I saw it with "more".

And it always says that: five more posts. (see above)

Hogwash again.

And you have very well experienced that flaw in the "enforcement of the limit", haven't you?

No. You are hopelessly wrong.

You admit there is wrong info given in the messages while at the same time trying to play it down.

More hogwash. However, you try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. You harp about messages or labels and refuse to admit that enforcing the limit and counting the top 20 posters work exactly like I said and flawlessly.

Merlin -

Good luck. So many have tried to communicate with Xray. She either doesn't want to understand or is incapable. I incline to the former interpretation.

THis extends, of course, not only to the discussion of how her number of posts is limited, but to most of her other discussions on OL.

Bill P