You said in the release notes that this was about server load, but now it’s about people voting too much for your tastes? 14K unique people cast at least one vote in the past day, I really doubt 10 people are having a great impact on the rankings. And if you think people are bots manipulating the rankings, then wouldn’t it be better to bring it up in the admin chats so they get banned?
Also, what’s the methodology you’ve used there? You say the top voter has 23K votes, but from feddit.uk’s data the top voter is at 19K, who happens to be a p.s user mind you.
The server infrastructure that we provide is a commons - a finite shared resource that people use. Why would we let 0.02% of the people take half of it? Couldn’t we just rein in that 0.02% and then spend way less money on servers?
You seem to keep flipping on this point, which is confusing to me.
If a limit must be applied for that reason, then so be it.
How much server costs would be saved though by this limiting, or is that simply a theoretical consideration?
Wouldn’t more savings be possible by something else like limiting uploaded image sizes, or like only allow 10 images per month (uploading a new one automatically deletes the prior one)? And if so, what is the benefit of that other solution vs. the effects of throttling the top contributors? Both decrease the overall health of the network, so which at least maximizes the savings from having done so?
You said in the release notes that this was about server load, but now it’s about people voting too much for your tastes? 14K unique people cast at least one vote in the past day, I really doubt 10 people are having a great impact on the rankings. And if you think people are bots manipulating the rankings, then wouldn’t it be better to bring it up in the admin chats so they get banned?
Also, what’s the methodology you’ve used there? You say the top voter has 23K votes, but from feddit.uk’s data the top voter is at 19K, who happens to be a p.s user mind you.
It is also about server load, yeah.
The server infrastructure that we provide is a commons - a finite shared resource that people use. Why would we let 0.02% of the people take half of it? Couldn’t we just rein in that 0.02% and then spend way less money on servers?
You seem to keep flipping on this point, which is confusing to me.
If a limit must be applied for that reason, then so be it.
How much server costs would be saved though by this limiting, or is that simply a theoretical consideration?
Wouldn’t more savings be possible by something else like limiting uploaded image sizes, or like only allow 10 images per month (uploading a new one automatically deletes the prior one)? And if so, what is the benefit of that other solution vs. the effects of throttling the top contributors? Both decrease the overall health of the network, so which at least maximizes the savings from having done so?