zlacker

>>vincen+(OP)
A collaborative resource with more information about undocumented/norms on HN: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented

> Personally, I’d stay at 3. I’d also wait at least a day between re-posts (and try re-posting at different time slots).

Wow, that's not how I parsed the very same reposting rules. If I'm about to submit something and I found an older submission with the same URL, my personal rule is that it should be older than a year ago before I'd submit it again. Three posts with the same URL for three consecutive days seems a bit too much.

> Hacker News is moderated mainly by dang aka Dan Gackle (pronounced ‘Gackley’). He’s not of asian descent

??? Is it common that people think he is Asian for some reason? What a strange paragraph to include...

>>capabl+42
Either I missed it or it does not mention "posting too fast" feature, which is very annoying, because if you commented on something you can be restricted from commenting on another, unrelated topic.

>>rimliu+B3
It's extremely annoying. It doesn't give you any indication how you triggered it, nor does it give you any indication how long you need to wait until you can post normally again.

What's more, since the people who wrote the code for this feature are pretty smart, it's hard to believe these two things are oversights.

Edit: In response to a now deleted comment on how this feature is intended to be annoying, because your contribution was deemed harmful, but not ban-worthy, I say this:

I disagree that this approach is correct in that case. If you want to discourage certain behavior, then, on a site such as HN, you should treat your users as adults and tell them what you don't want them to do. Simply locking them out for an unknown amount of time, for unknown reasons, is just going to drive them away. This is just basic operant conditioning. Presumably, driving the user away entirely is not the result one wants a significant portion of the time.