[Ecks]

A lot of new users pop up, some good, some bad. Here recently I have come to the conclusion that we need tighter restrictions on new users. I feel that new users should have to at least have 25 posts before being able to add any sort of rep other than neutral. I have also noticed other than gravedigging many come here and simply start posting links to try and clickbait other users, maybe enforce email confirmation before allowing links. I am sure others have many more ideas on how to clean up the garbage newbs from the good ones.

[zenith]

I mean, I guess the rep thing makes sense? But then they would mindlessly post 25 times and then rep someone. Becoming an issue to the entire forum and not just one person

Grave digging isn't really grave digging if you add to the conversation either.

[Satan]

The problem with enforcing any sort of requirements beyond one that occurs at sign-up is that it would encourage low-quality posts, require manual intervention or review by moderators, or etc.

Even then, it does not truly fix problems. If for example we had a requirement on the sales area that you had to make 25 non-lq posts, which would be reviewed by a moderator, most would barely squeeze that out, post their sales thread and leave, which is cancerous to a site's overall health.

Plus, email verification doesn't really do much beyond just adding a two second step to a process, you can generate endless emails or use hacked ones for essentially any purpose.

[mothered]

In my views, the minimum 25 post count to add reputation (+/-) Is a good starting point.

Perhaps a minimum char requirement with keyword filtering (to help prevent spam), can also be enforced. That said, If the Implementations were to take place, there needs to be an equilibrium otherwise It may over-complicate matters and defeat It's purpose.

[Sikom]

As suggested earlier in another thread, maybe we could try to add a method, that checks if there is any links. And stops that from being posted if the user has under 25 post (except maybe in thread)

[Blink]

In my views, the minimum 25 post count to add reputation (+/-) Is a good starting point.

This is great.

Stopping links though, isn't the best idea. It just makes people do stupid shit like "example(dot)com".

[Sikom]

In my views, the minimum 25 post count to add reputation (+/-) Is a good starting point.

This is great.

Stopping links though, isn't the best idea.  It just makes people do stupid shit like "example(dot)com".

Well, that is possible to prevent, I have done it myself, and I think it was quite effective. Could send you the code if you are interested in looking at it

[Jiggly]

Some nice ideas going back and forth here. I think the most practical suggestion (the one with the least problems) it the 25 post requirement for rep. I doubt people would really go through the effort of shitposting just to rep. Also, if they did, and got banned for spam etc, moderators can remove rep if it is against SL's rules and is reported.

[Oni]

Nothing would stop someone from making the 25 posts, or later ragequitting and leaving negative rep. The reputation system is only as reliable as the members.

[Bish0pQ]

I do agree. Also somekind of extra spamfilter would be nice. Maybe through machine learning you can create something that detects SPAM more easily. The 25 posts requirement is a good thing.