Warning against consecutive posts (SMF patch)

[PowerGlove]

I've been thinking for a while now that rule #32 violations (unnecessary consecutive posts) are handled pretty poorly... As I understand it, when posts like that are reported and moderators merge them together, the author gets notified that one (or more) of their posts were deleted, but they're not given a specific reason why, so they're unlikely to learn anything from the interaction. I remember when I had an early post of mine deleted by a moderator, it was a pretty confusing/deflating experience, and I was kind of left guessing at what was wrong with my post... I think that especially when it's for something that amounts to a very minor posting misbehavior, being left to figure out on your own what you did wrong is even worse. In fact, in this case, I think overzealous reporting might actually do more harm than good (that is, it's probably counterproductive in terms of the forum's health: for minor violations, the benefit of having a superficially cleaner forum is probably more than matched by the damage caused in making this place feel inhospitable).

Long-term, I'll make a patch to let moderators leave an optional reason for post deletion, which will hopefully make the general being-moderated experience less confusing/deflating (especially for newbies), but, for now, all I really have in mind are rule #32 violations (because I've been reporting quite a few of those lately, and I'm starting to feel like a douchecanoe for doing that, especially when you consider what I said in the previous paragraph). I think adding a warning against consecutive posts is a good thing to do (both to hopefully curb multi-posting, and to maybe reduce moderation busywork, along with providing users with at least some context for when they get notified that their posts are getting deleted/merged: after all, if they've been seeing and ignoring warnings given to them before they post, then they'll probably be able to correctly guess at what they've been doing wrong).

So, this patch adds the following warning when you're about to add another post to a topic that you're already the latest, recent (<24 hours) poster in:



(There's even a handy dandy link that takes you directly to the appropriate "Edit message" page.)

Here are the diffs for @theymos:

Code:

--- baseline/Sources/Post.php	2011-02-07 16:45:09.000000000 +0000
+++ modified/Sources/Post.php	2024-05-12 23:43:54.000000000 +0000
@@ -1080,24 +1080,40 @@
 		));
 
 	if (!empty($topic))
 		getTopic();
 
 	$context['back_to_topic'] = isset($_REQUEST['goback']) || (isset($_REQUEST['msg']) && !isset($_REQUEST['subject']));
 	$context['show_additional_options'] = !empty($_POST['additional_options']) || !empty($_SESSION['temp_attachments']) || !empty($deleted_attachments);
 
 	$context['is_new_topic'] = empty($topic);
 	$context['is_new_post'] = !isset($_REQUEST['msg']);
 	$context['is_first_post'] = $context['is_new_topic'] || (isset($_REQUEST['msg']) && $_REQUEST['msg'] == $ID_FIRST_MSG);
 
+	// Add a warning against consecutive posts. This logic is placed where it is (near the end of this function) mostly because it expects getTopic() to have already been called (when applicable).
+	if (isset($context['previous_posts']) && count($context['previous_posts']) > 0)
+	{
+		$previous_post = $context['previous_posts'][0];
+		$is_consecutive_post = $context['is_new_post'] && $previous_post['poster'] == $context['user']['name'];
+		$is_previous_post_recent = time() - $previous_post['timestamp'] < 86400;
+		$no_serious_error = empty($context['error_type']) || $context['error_type'] != 'serious';
+
+		if ($is_consecutive_post && $is_previous_post_recent && $no_serious_error)
+		{
+			$edit_post_url = $scripturl . '?action=post;msg=' . $previous_post['id'] . ';topic=' . $topic . '.0;sesc=' . $sc;
+			$context['post_error']['messages'][] = sprintf($txt['error_consecutive_post'], $edit_post_url);
+			$context['error_type'] = 'minor';
+		}
+	}
+
 	// Register this form in the session variables.
 	checkSubmitOnce('register');
 
 	// Finally, load the template.
 	if (WIRELESS)
 		$context['sub_template'] = WIRELESS_PROTOCOL . '_post';
 	elseif (!isset($_REQUEST['xml']))
 		loadTemplate('Post');
 }
 
 function Post2()
 {

Code:

--- baseline/Themes/default/languages/Post.english.php	2011-02-07 16:45:09.000000000 +0000
+++ modified/Themes/default/languages/Post.english.php	2024-05-12 23:47:12.000000000 +0000
@@ -148,10 +148,11 @@
 $txt['error_new_reply'] = 'Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.';
 $txt['error_new_replies'] = 'Warning - while you were typing %d new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.';
 $txt['error_new_reply_reading'] = 'Warning - while you were reading a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.';
 $txt['error_new_replies_reading'] = 'Warning - while you were reading %d new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.';
 $txt['error_old_topic'] = 'Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least ' . $modSettings['oldTopicDays'] . ' days.<br />Unless you\'re sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.';
+$txt['error_consecutive_post'] = 'Warning: a recent post of yours is already the latest one in this topic.<br />Unless you\'re sure that a new post is necessary, please <a href="%s">add to your recent post</a> instead.';
 
 // Use numeric entities in the below sixteen strings.
 $txt['notification_reply_subject'] = 'Topic reply: %s';
 $txt['notification_reply'] = 'A reply has been posted to a topic you are watching by %s.' . "\n\n" . 'View the reply at: ';
 $txt['notification_sticky_subject'] = 'Topic stickied: %s';

[philipma1957]

Has this been done?

[philipma1957]

Testing to see.

No sign of warning.

It should be nice once it is done.

at

Mods feel free to merge this.

I am on a mobile.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I like the idea!
Being a warning it will still allow a new topic to be followed with multiple sequential <reserved spacer> posts (usually 2 or 3) following the opening post. This is often done when starting say a new hardware review. For example, the reserved post(s) usually end up holding pictures and testing details.

[nutildah]

Another banger by the mysterious Max Headroom wizard.

In fact, in this case, I think overzealous reporting might actually do more harm than good (that is, it's probably counterproductive in terms of the forum's health: for minor violations, the benefit of having a superficially cleaner forum is probably more than matched by the damage caused in making this place feel inhospitable).

You're probably right about that, and I think its equal parts annoying for the the mod and the poster who is having their posts merged. Sometimes its pretty clear when a thread-starter is just posting to keep their thread at the top of a section; sometimes its just an rules education issue, and I usually warn the poster that their posts will be deleted if they keep doing consecutive posts. Some listen and some don't.

I like how its just a warning and optional rather than explicitly prohibiting the poster from making a consecutive post. Seems like there is a precedent for such a thing to be instated as there is a similar warning that accompanies would-be necro-posts/bumps.

[Poker Player]

Good idea but by the way you could make a patch for the moderators to explain why they don't act on reports of rule 32 violations.

[Charles-Tim]

After the warning, the user can still proceed to post? Let us say the user first clicked on 'post' and this warning appears, but clicked on post again and he successfully posted it. If this is how it is, that is good.

Good idea but by the way you could make a patch for the moderators to explain why they don't act on reports of rule 32 violations.

Moderators are acting on it. I mean the ones that I have reported before are often merged. But there are sometimes that I will not report it, example is if the person posted on the thread a day or some days or weeks before posting on the thread. If the information is useful, I will not report it.

Moderators may not act on it if people are not reporting it because it is hard to find unlike new topics. Even moderators act on new topics fast when reported.

[LoyceV]

How about automatically merging them? Like this:

The post is untouched, but the black parts aren't shown anymore. Now that I type it, I realize this is probably much more work to do. And even more work if the second post is on a new page.

This should also work fine with "Reserved" posts, and since posts aren't really merged, the post size limit shouldn't be a problem either. If the new post doesn't count as a bump, rule #32 becomes obsolete

[EL MOHA]

This is another great addition PowerGlove, I could remember days ago I made a mistake of posting same thing on a single thread after double clicking it. Although it was because I was using my mobile phone, so the first post actually got posted but i didn’t know due to the network connection and I clicked on post again, luckily I could be able to delete the post immediately from that board. A warning like this could have easily prevented that.

After the warning, the user can still proceed to post? Let us say the user first clicked on 'post' and this warning appears, but clicked on post again and he successfully posted it. If this is how it is, that is good.

Yes the user can definitely still proceed to post, it’s a warning not restriction just like the usual warning we get when a new post is added to a thread while typing yours.

[PrimeNumber7]

How about automatically merging them? Like this:

There may be some instances in which it is appropriate to have two consecutive posts.

[Lucius]

Any change that can lead in a positive direction is welcome, although it is always a question of how much effect a warning can have for those who obviously do not read the rules or any other warnings that the forum shows them. Maybe that patch could also have some real preventive measure in the sense that it would disable "Posting multiple posts in a row" in a way that it would simply refuse to publish such posts?

[Upgrade00]

Good work as always PowerGlove. But can mods leave clearer messages so the user is not confused when they get a notification? I know it may be too much work to write down a notification message for each action they take, but they can choose an option from the most commonly used actions which will be added to the system. Such as;
• A reply of yours was deleted cause it's spam
• A reply if yours was deleted cause it is off topic
• Consecutive posts merged (see rule 32)

Mods will be in a better position to know what they commonly handle and which options to add to make their job easier and the message clearer.

Maybe that patch could also have some real preventive measure in the sense that it would disable "Posting multiple posts in a row" in a way that it would simply refuse to publish such posts?

This will affect lots of other members. Those who make announcement threads for example usually "reserve" the first reply after starting their threads which will count as posting in a row. Campaign managers also after announcing to have made the payment for a week in their thread will commonly have no reply there till the next week, which will also count as consecutive posting too.
There are other scenarios where it's necessary, so disabling it entirely will be counter productive.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

Good work as always PowerGlove. But can mods leave clearer messages so the user is not confused when they get a notification? I know it may be too much work to write down a notification message for each action they take, but they can choose an option from the most commonly used actions which will be added to the system. Such as;
• A reply of yours was deleted cause it's spam
• A reply if yours was deleted cause it is off topic
• Consecutive posts merged (see rule 32)

Mods will be in a better position to know what they commonly handle and which options to add to make their job easier and the message clearer.

I understand that this SMF patch is for a user, a notification for the user and his consecutive posts in a same thread. Like if you make a post, then want to make another post but your previous post is already a latest post in this thread, you will get this notification from PowerGlove's SMF patch.

You will decide to post it or return to your previous post, and edit it with a content you are composing for a new post, which now will not be publish.

For moderators, reporters can use a user script to simplify their report titles to moderators.

[HACK] One-click mod report, not for the faint of heart

[dkbit98]

So, this patch adds the following warning when you're about to add another post to a topic that you're already the latest, recent (<24 hours)

PowerGlove strikes yet again with another SMF patch 
This sounds like a great idea and it should reduce creation of consecutive posts especially for newbies and recently registered accounts, maybe it can even reduce spam.
I just hope members won't just ignore this warning, so I would even totally disable making consecutive posts for brand new accounts.

[joker_josue]

I think it will be a good patch.

It's true, as some users mention, there are cases where the following posts make sense or are useful for the topic. But, normally this only applies to the OP. I know that configuring a way for this alert not to appear to the OP will be more complicated, and in the end it has little practical effect. So I think this is fine.

Congratulations on yet another excellent job. 

How about automatically merging them? Like this:

The post is untouched, but the black parts aren't shown anymore. Now that I type it, I realize this is probably much more work to do. And even more work if the second post is on a new page.

This should also work fine with "Reserved" posts, and since posts aren't really merged, the post size limit shouldn't be a problem either. If the new post doesn't count as a bump, rule #32 becomes obsolete

This would involve a lot of work changing the SMF. And in some cases this wouldn't make sense, because double posting is useful (as some members mentioned).

So the alert solution is the most appropriate.

[KingsDen]

Good work as always PowerGlove. But can mods leave clearer messages so the user is not confused when they get a notification? I know it may be too much work to write down a notification message for each action they take, but they can choose an option from the most commonly used actions which will be added to the system. Such as;
• A reply of yours was deleted cause it's spam
• A reply if yours was deleted cause it is off topic
• Consecutive posts merged (see rule 32)

Mods will be in a better position to know what they commonly handle and which options to add to make their job easier and the message clearer.

This will help newbies alot. I was confused when some of my posts were deleted in my newbie days. I wouldn't know if it was an off topic, or spam or was just reported and deleted for no reason (which was what I believed then).
I instead have another striking concern;

• You have been banned because of plagerism.
• You have been banned because of spamming
• You have been banned for sharing malicious links

Etc.
This could guide those writing ban appeals on how to present their cases.

Maybe that patch could also have some real preventive measure in the sense that it would disable "Posting multiple posts in a row" in a way that it would simply refuse to publish such posts?

This will affect lots of other members. Those who make announcement threads for example usually "reserve" the first reply after starting their threads which will count as posting in a row. Campaign managers also after announcing to have made the payment for a week in their thread will commonly have no reply there till the next week, which will also count as consecutive posting too.
There are other scenarios where it's necessary, so disabling it entirely will be counter productive.

Apart from the above you described, the forum does not operate in such a way to deny anyone freedom. Even bumping warnings doesn't restrict you from posting, rather it will encourage you to start a new topic unless it's very necessary to bump.

[Upgrade00]

This could guide those writing ban appeals on how to present their cases.

I do not mind this. 99% of ban appeals do not get accepted anyway and same percentage of bans are for plagiarism, the ban punishment on spam is loosely enforced and malicious link bans are not common.
When you narrow it down to plagiarism and sharing malwares, any user doing this knows exactly what they are doing and do not need pointers nor do they need to appeal.

We just just have the one unique situation every once in a long while when a user gets wrongly banned and needs clarification to direct their appeal. This can be handled on a case by case basis.

[KingsDen]

This could guide those writing ban appeals on how to present their cases.

I do not mind this. 99% of ban appeals do not get accepted anyway and same percentage of bans are for plagiarism, the ban punishment on spam is loosely enforced and malicious link bans are not common.
When you narrow it down to plagiarism and sharing malwares, any user doing this knows exactly what they are doing and do not need pointers nor do they need to appeal.

We just just have the one unique situation every once in a long while when a user gets wrongly banned and needs clarification to direct their appeal. This can be handled on a case by case basis.

Well said. Most ban appeals are handled case by case. When I was new, I remember two members unbanned within the same space. But I haven't seen something like that again. I would like you to check out this thread, you will see that forum is become very lenient in recent time.

[PX-Z]

If there is an option to disable this on settings like if there is a new post before you hit a post button is much better, of course this will be enabled by default. Because it will be a bit annoying for those topic OP who usually make reserve posts after creating the thread.

[LoyceV]

it will be a bit annoying for those topic OP who usually make reserve posts after creating the thread.

All you'll have to do is scroll down a bit more.