I don't have any question, just annoyance. A post requirement is fine with me, but TELL ME ABOUT IT FIRST. Did you hide it in the EULA?

care to tell us what you're talking about???

Ahh, no, was just tired and annoyed. I typed a lot of reply to someone after registering, and lost a lot of it to the POST no-cache. When I submitted my reply, I got the "you can't post any URL if it is your first post" error, and when I went back, my textarea was gone.

Might be nice if you mention URLs in the signup. Wasn't even too angry when I posted the above, just had to satisfy the 1st post requirement

it's there to stop spammers, and you do not *need* to post urls. bumping a post count for the sake of it is *not* appreciated... you're lucky. it only came down from 5 posts to 1 a month or so ago...

wow, way to annoy your new members by requiring posts in order to post links

I think it's funny that people are bashing the moderators for their rules while using their HELPFUL and (most importantly) FREE site.

If you don't like it, there's always the door.

Well said and very tactful. I don't understand why people "need" to post urls so very quickly after registering. I think that as long as the label is Newbie under the user name then urls should be blocked.

There are so many children out there that get angry at the minimum post rule that they just go out and wantonly post their required minimum to gain the ability to post an url that they don't really need to post. Why not think of some articulate question without the url? Why not reference the site without actually posting the url? Someone who takes the time to write an intelligent question without posting an url is probably more apt to getting help because they took the time to write an intelligent question rather than giving a little story, an url for most of the information, and a plea/demand for immediate help because "they're frustrated and can't do it." It can be done because I've seen it but unfortunately it takes a functional human being to do so.

Furthermore, it's just so easy to get around this rule if you're determined to post a question with an url to a site with more information. If you're really serious about getting help and need to link to more information then you would take the extra minute (at most) to do what's necessary rather than shutting down and complaining or even worse: posting randomly to increase your post count while aggravating everyone.

I, for one, could exist just fine here at LQ without ever having the ability to post urls. I'm sure that most people here that understand LQ, its rules, and its purpose wouldn't have that much of a problem, either. Not to say it's what I want, but just to illustrate the point...
Now that's a legitimate complaint. I can completely see that problem and I agree that should be handled a little better.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a post requirement, nor am I bashing anyone for it.. just expressing frustration

The more hoops you have to jump through to post, the higher the quality will be for posts in general IMHO, but participation will suffer proportionately. That balance can be hard to get right, but I think it's fine here.. I just wish that I had known that particular requirement before I typed my first post.

Was pretty excited to have finally figured something out that a lot of forums/howtos said couldn't be done (software RAID 5 shared between linux and windows xp). This seemed like the place to share my experience, since it comes up on google so often.

As far as needing to include URLs, maybe you haven't seen the post I'm talking about. Please take a look at it here: (link)
Sure, I didn't *need* to post the URLs, but as you can see this is not exactly

@ moaimullet: I actually agree that you should have some foreknowledge about the post requirement and honestly I wasn't trying to single you out at all. My post wasn't very well targeted now that I look back on it. I do apologize. My general complaint was that new members either complain mercilessly or post unnecessarily. You did push that envelope but you did so out of frustration. Also, just because you're linking to some very useful information doesn't make the issue of posting urls any different. While it is different than what I was complaining about and didn't apply to you, it doesn't really matter. You didn't need to post that link even though it was very helpful and I would have certainly appreciated it myself if it were my thread. There are other ways to get that information across. That's all...

Hi,

I'm not entering the flaming. Not interested. However, as a newbie, the following points have been made which I agree _would_ be useful, despite my having found and read this thread prior to posting _at all_:

1. Clear notification about posting requirements for posting urls prior to member sign-up

2. Ability to keep/edit posts with errors, rather than auto deletion

Just my thought, and perhaps this belongs in "suggestions" but forgive me, I'm a newb,

salenger

As far as losing the post goes, it's been looked into and it seems to be something that doesn't affect everyone (for example, my pc keeps the posts even if I hit back) and isn't something that is fixable.

As far as the one post limit goes, experience shows that the vast majority of first posts with URLs in them are spam. We had to weigh up a very small inconvenience to genuine posters against the possibility of the boards being flooded and the mods unable to cope. I've seen boards sink because of this.

On the other hand, while a clickable link is nice, what's wrong with:
example.com
w w w.example.com
h t t p://www.example.com
and so on?