Topic: Pool hourly edit limit is quite low

I'd like to standardise the pool name format, but the pool hourly edit limit is set to 10 and after which you're told:

Error: Updater have reached the hourly limit for this action

It seems strange that we can only edit 10 pools in an hour, when we're allowed to edit 150 posts every hour. In fact, the wiki page for accounts barely mentions pools at all. I've reviewed the e621 source code, and would like to propose updating the wiki page with the modified text shown in bold below:

Member

• Must wait three days after registration to create tickets or edit pools
• Must wait seven days after registration to:
• Create pools
• Add or remove posts from pools, create public sets
• Can create 5 pools per hour
• Can edit 10 pools per hour
• Can add/remove 30 posts from pools per hour

Privileged

• No hourly limit on adding/removing posts from pools

Janitor

• No hourly pool create or edit limit

Further to this, is there any scope for raising this limit? Alternatively, if the hourly limit is relaxed at the Privileged level, rather than Janitor, it makes it more attainable for users who "have proven that they're a positive addition to the community" and would like to be promoted ;)

References

• Accounts wiki page: e621:accounts#Member
• Source code account limits
• Source code limit duration rules

Just want to point out that another user got banned for 2 weeks for doing exactly what you're trying to do.

I see. Thank you for finding and linking this.

donovan_dmc said:
That limit exists to stop abusive behavior, which is frankly exactly what you're doing

I understand the intent as to prevent abusive behavior; but to be honest I find it ridiculous in the extreme that there is any comparison at all between editing pool titles and it being considered abusive.

donovan_dmc said:
Pools do not need the artist name in them if the pool name is unique, stop making these edits

With respect, if this was truly the case there would be some kind of guidance to the effect, would there not? Neither the pool creation/edit page, nor the pool wiki page, make any reference to artist names in pool titles, let alone it being something discouraged.

If this is the stance from E621 staff then so be it, please make it clear on the pool wiki page. But, if there is any opportunity for rational discussion here, I think it should be quite obvious that many people do search the pool list by artist name, so taking these out is doing users a disservice.

civil_nitrogen said:
Just want to point out that another user got banned for 2 weeks for doing exactly what you're trying to do.

Mods really suck. They don't standardize the pool name format, which leaves a mess for us, which leaves us users who don't want this mess to do the standardization ourselves. Yet they mods called this absolutely insane ?

Mods should just let us search the authors/artists/contributors tags within the pool's pics.

derpetologist said:
I see. Thank you for finding and linking this.

I understand the intent as to prevent abusive behavior; but to be honest I find it ridiculous in the extreme that there is any comparison at all between editing pool titles and it being considered abusive.

With respect, if this was truly the case there would be some kind of guidance to the effect, would there not? Neither the pool creation/edit page, nor the pool wiki page, make any reference to artist names in pool titles, let alone it being something discouraged.

If this is the stance from E621 staff then so be it, please make it clear on the pool wiki page. But, if there is any opportunity for rational discussion here, I think it should be quite obvious that many people do search the pool list by artist name, so taking these out is doing users a disservice.

Rational? What you expect? If they have already banned a user for the same thing you were doing, what else do you expect this time would be different? The most rational discussion will be whether they want to ban you for 7 days or 14.

civil_nitrogen said:
Just want to point out that another user got banned for 2 weeks for doing exactly what you're trying to do.

newknot said:
Yet they mods called this absolutely insane ?

newknot said:
Rational? What you expect? If they have already banned a user for the same thing you were doing, what else do you expect this time would be different? The most rational discussion will be whether they want to ban you for 7 days or 14.

That's.. not what the ban was for? That should be obvious from the context, the ban is before the record for the behavior brought up in that topic, the two are wholly unrelated

newknot said:
Mods should just let us search the authors/artists/contributors tags within the pool's pics.

"Mods" don't get to decide what features are integrated into the site, I had a pr ready to implement artist searching on pools and it was pushed of for 5 months before I eventually left staff and stopped all development here
At this point it has been 17 months and still no progress has been made

derpetologist said:
I understand the intent as to prevent abusive behavior; but to be honest I find it ridiculous in the extreme that there is any comparison at all between editing pool titles and it being considered abusive.

Unwanted and unneeded edits are in their nature abusive

verb; abuse: "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse."

derpetologist said:
With respect, if this was truly the case there would be some kind of guidance to the effect, would there not? Neither the pool creation/edit page, nor the pool wiki page, make any reference to artist names in pool titles, let alone it being something discouraged.

Not every little thing is going to be written in stone, and besides the issue there is editing existing pools to do nothing other than adding to the name
if you're adding a post or making meaningful edits to the description by all means edit the title to add the artist name
I'd like to discourage it but clearly an actual search feature for artist names isn't coming any time soon

I'd also like to point to this quote in the mentioned topic:

dba_afish said:
you really should stop doing this to old, pools it's really annoying to see something that hasn't updated in a while get bumped to the top of the pools gallery. if a gallery has already been recently bumped there's not much harm in adding the name otherwise, leave it.

The core issue is making edits for nothing other than adding the artist name to the title

Unwanted and unneeded edits are in their nature abusive

verb; abuse: "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse."

Not every little thing is going to be written in stone, and besides the issue there is editing existing pools to do nothing other than adding to the name
if you're adding a post or making meaningful edits to the description by all means edit the title to add the artist name
I'd like to discourage it but clearly an actual search feature for artist names isn't coming any time soon

I'd also like to point to this quote in the mentioned topic:
The core issue is making edits for nothing other than adding the artist name to the title

Well if those kind of editing is a little thing for you, it certainly wouldn't bother anyone because it's little; If you think this behavior would be considered as abuse this matter, then write it down as clear as possible.

There have already two peoples required pool edit limit, based on a fact of disconnection between pool and its authors/artists/contributors on this site. Users tried to build connections for their own good, yet your developers wasn't able to fulfill the function for a problem you already knew.

If you admit that disconnection may be a problem, then standardize the pool name format to solve it; if you think this isn't a big deal to even bring up, then there must be something wrong with you, you even seen a bookstore introducing books without marking its authors? Not to mention most of pools are comics with a particular author.

What about you let pool get bumped to the top only when pool's pics are changed, that sure be easy.