Return to Answer

I agree, I almost stopped using SO because of new user restrictions. But then I relaxed.

I still feel that if the restrictions aren't irritating enough, not mentioning them until a user tries to submit there post is over the top. New user restrictions should be explicitly outlined in the FAQ along with the rep required to remove them.

Here is an example on skeptics of a question where the formating suffered (slightly) from restricting the number of hyper-links. Are there reptilian creatures hosting the news?

Fortunately the restrictions don't last long (at least in my experience) and the questions or answers usually get cleaned up pretty quickly.

This answer (the one your reading right now) is also an example of a case where I just wanted to leave a comment in agreement but thanks to restrictions, I am forced to create a new answer just to provide my two cents.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise between spam prevention and the suggestion made by the OP would be to automatically flag posts for review when a new user posts several links.

Honestly though, just increasing the limit a bit is probably the easiest solution for this particular issue and would solve some new user irritation. Stating explicitly in FAQ would also help. Skeptics indeed will generally need more than one source of information. (Note: The restriction is currently two for questions at the time of this post)

Edit: It seems new user restrictions are in fact explicitly stated here. I just never found that page when it was still an issue for me.

I agree, I almost stopped using SO because of new user restrictions. But then I relaxed.

I still feel that if the restrictions aren't irritating enough, not mentioning them until a user tries to submit there post is over the top. New user restrictions should be explicitly outlined in the FAQ along with the rep required to remove them.

Here is an example on skeptics of a question where the formating suffered (slightly) from restricting the number of hyper-links. Are there reptilian creatures hosting the news?

Fortunately the restrictions don't last long (at least in my experience) and the questions or answers usually get cleaned up pretty quickly.

This answer (the one your reading right now) is also an example of a case where I just wanted to leave a comment in agreement but thanks to restrictions, I am forced to create a new answer just to provide my two cents.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise between spam prevention and the suggestion made by the OP would be to automatically flag posts for review when a new user posts several links.

Honestly though, just increasing the limit a bit is probably the easiest solution for this particular issue and would solve some new user irritation. Stating explicitly in FAQ would also help. Skeptics indeed will generally need more than one source of information. (Note: The restriction is currently two for questions at the time of this post)

Edit: It seems new user restrictions are in fact explicitly stated here. I just never found that page when it was still an issue for me.

I agree, I almost stopped using SO because of new user restrictions. But then I relaxed.

I still feel that if the restrictions aren't irritating enough, not mentioning them until a user tries to submit there post is over the top. New user restrictions should be explicitly outlined in the FAQ along with the rep required to remove them.

Here is an example on skeptics of a question where the formating suffered (slightly) from restricting the number of hyper-links. Are there reptilian creatures hosting the news?

Fortunately the restrictions don't last long (at least in my experience) and the questions or answers usually get cleaned up pretty quickly.

This answer (the one your reading right now) is also an example of a case where I just wanted to leave a comment in agreement but thanks to restrictions, I am forced to create a new answer just to provide my two cents.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise between spam prevention and the suggestion made by the OP would be to automatically flag posts for review when a new user posts several links.

Honestly though, just increasing the limit a bit is probably the easiest solution for this particular issue and would solve some new user irritation. Stating explicitly in FAQ would also help. Skeptics indeed will generally need more than one source of information. (Note: The restriction is currently two for questions at the time of this post)

Edit: It seems new user restrictions are in fact explicitly stated here. I just never found that page when it was still an issue for me.

I agree, I almost stopped using SO because of new user restrictions. But then I relaxed.

I still feel that if the restrictions aren't irritating enough, not mentioning them until a user tries to submit there post is over the top. New user restrictions should be explicitly outlined in the FAQ along with the rep required to remove them.

Here is an example on skeptics of a question where the formating suffered (slightly) from restricting the number of hyper-links. Are there reptilian creatures hosting the news?

Fortunately the restrictions don't last long (at least in my experience) and the questions or answers usually get cleaned up pretty quickly.

This answer (the one your reading right now) is also an example of a case where I just wanted to leave a comment in agreement but thanks to restrictions, I am forced to create a new answer just to provide my two cents.

Perhaps a reasonable compromise between spam prevention and the suggestion made by the OP would be to automatically flag posts for review when a new user posts several links.

Honestly though, just increasing the limit a bit is probably the easiest solution for this particular issue and would solve some new user irritation. Stating explicitly in FAQ would also help. Skeptics indeed will generally need more than one source of information. (Note: The restriction is currently two for questions at the time of this post)

Edit: It seems new user restrictions are in fact explicitly stated here. I just never found that page when it was still an issue for me.