4 ms·

I notice that both the accounts on that post were created right before that post, presumably for the sole purpose of creating that post. It seems to me that th

I notice that both the accounts on that post were created right before that post, presumably for the sole purpose of creating that post. It seems to me that that's fairly common. Why not add a delay (1-2 days or so) from the time an account is created until they can post? It seems to me that doing so would likely make it too difficult to create a large number of spam posts. I know that there are sometimes members who create pseudo-accounts to protect their identity on certain posts but you may be able to work around that by letting posters use aliases that would not link back to their main account on the front end.

pg 16y ago
That would restrict legit users too. But what I might do is say that some posts have to be approved by moderators, and use the newness of the account as one factor in deciding which to say that for. Spam is not an insoluble problem though. Most of it gets autokilled.
- kgermino 16y ago
  That may be OK in that it might help force users to spend more time getting a feel for the site before they submit. It would also help level out the surge of new members that I read sometimes happens when HN gets linked to. AFAIK neither of these have become serious issues so far but I think it's at least worth taking into account when you make your decision. Edit: To me it comes down to balancing solving these issues (if they even exist, you would know that better than me) and missing out on whatever content that doesn't get posted because of the restriction.
  - derefr 16y ago
    No one registers until they have to—that is, until they have something to submit. If you read HN for months, finally finding something worthy to submit, set up an account, and then find you can't, I believe you'd be a bit steamed. Also, some people create one-time accounts to detach certain posts from their well-known pseudonyms (whistleblowing, asking advice about projects under NDAs without giving identifiable details, etc.). These accounts would be thus restricted as well, which would discourage this type of contribution.
    - kgermino 16y ago
      Your first point is a good one, and looking back was presumably the basis for pg's disagreement. And as long as there is no serious problem with posts by brand new accounts that alone is likely a good enough reason to say I'm wrong. Your second point could be fixed by allowing users to create pseudo-accounts that don't visibly link back to their main accounts. Although as I think about that now that would only work until lawyers got involved, so not at all on serious issues. On second thought I concede to your points.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      > Also, some people create one-time accounts to detach certain posts from their well-known pseudonyms (whistleblowing, asking advice about projects under NDAs without giving identifiable details, etc.). And that already seems to be problematic enough: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1324825 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1324825

pg 16y ago

That would restrict legit users too. But what I might do is say that some posts have to be approved by moderators, and use the newness of the account as one factor in deciding which to say that for. Spam is not an insoluble problem though. Most of it gets autokilled.

kgermino 16y ago
That may be OK in that it might help force users to spend more time getting a feel for the site before they submit. It would also help level out the surge of new members that I read sometimes happens when HN gets linked to. AFAIK neither of these have become serious issues so far but I think it's at least worth taking into account when you make your decision. Edit: To me it comes down to balancing solving these issues (if they even exist, you would know that better than me) and missing out on whatever content that doesn't get posted because of the restriction.
- derefr 16y ago
  No one registers until they have to—that is, until they have something to submit. If you read HN for months, finally finding something worthy to submit, set up an account, and then find you can't, I believe you'd be a bit steamed. Also, some people create one-time accounts to detach certain posts from their well-known pseudonyms (whistleblowing, asking advice about projects under NDAs without giving identifiable details, etc.). These accounts would be thus restricted as well, which would discourage this type of contribution.
  - kgermino 16y ago
    Your first point is a good one, and looking back was presumably the basis for pg's disagreement. And as long as there is no serious problem with posts by brand new accounts that alone is likely a good enough reason to say I'm wrong. Your second point could be fixed by allowing users to create pseudo-accounts that don't visibly link back to their main accounts. Although as I think about that now that would only work until lawyers got involved, so not at all on serious issues. On second thought I concede to your points.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > Also, some people create one-time accounts to detach certain posts from their well-known pseudonyms (whistleblowing, asking advice about projects under NDAs without giving identifiable details, etc.). And that already seems to be problematic enough: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1324825 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1324825