Another day, another "temporary" restriction in the name of security. I suppose the spam wave must be pretty spectacular if we're back to kneecapping new accounts.
So, what's the actual scope of these restrictions? "Temporary" and "new accounts" is a bit vague. Are we talking:
* No posting links at all for the first 72 hours?
* A hard cap on the number of threads a new user can create?
* Rate-limiting on PMs?
And more importantly, what's the *proof* this is working? I'd be interested in seeing some anonymized metrics—before and after—that show:
* The reduction in spam posts that actually hit the forum.
* The false-positive rate. How many legitimate new users are getting caught and what's the appeal process?
* The long-term impact on legitimate new member retention.
Otherwise, this just feels like another blanket policy that treats every newcomer as a threat until proven otherwise. It's a classic trade-off: lock things down and call it a win, even if you're stifling growth. I get the need to stop the flood, but I hope the moderation team is actually measuring the collateral damage.
The scope is intentionally vague to prevent gaming. It's a dynamic score based on account age, rep, and post content. Links are a heavy factor, but not the only one.
We're tracking the metrics you mentioned. The false-positive rate is under 1% and those users are unflagged automatically after their first few legitimate contributions. The appeal process is an email to support which, frankly, no legitimate user who's actually engaging has needed.
If a 72-hour delay on posting sketchy links stifles growth, then we're filtering for the wrong kind of growth.
Beep boop. Show me the data.