questionsshould you require at least one woot to be ableā€¦


Yes, and I would go one step further and require at least one woot to post a deal as well.


Wooters need at least one purchase to vote?


And their first question will be how to contact customer service about said first Woot?


I'm personally totally tired of drive-by questions from folks who either want to spam their carp sites here, want us to provide tech support on starting a business, or use AtC as some sort of global resource whatever question pops into their mind but give no indication they even bothered to stop back in for answers.

Is this really the place to ask why someone can't find people they've tagged?

I've seen no indication over the years that any of these folks go on to begin any sort of continuing relationship with Woot. Meanwhile, the lag time between us flagging the spammers and their posts being deleted seems to be increasing.

So yes, I'd be strongly in favor of requiring at least one Woot purchase to be able to ask questions here.


Yes, that seems reasonable and logical. So I'm betting it will never happen.


@omnichad: I am pretty sure that's the way it has always been on deals.woot!

k87 k87

I don't think requiring a woot to ask a question is exactly fair/needed. I would be more than okay with requiring a minimum account age - a week, maybe? You can't vote/comment for 24hrs, post deals or questions for a week.
I don't know, that seems more appropriate to me. Also, I don't think woot takes you back to white square if you cancel an order - so the 1 woot rule may backfire if you order, then cancel; to meet the requirement.


@thumperchick: " I would be more than okay with requiring a minimum account age - a week, maybe?"

That's a reasonable alternative, and I could support that change. My main issue is keeping the spammers and drive-by questioners from hitting us. A delayed-access system won't stop all of them, but it would likely reduce the number of no-content posts.


How about paying a subscription fee to participate in deals.woot? :) Seriously, I'm just kidding.

I'm in agreement with need for a woot or age of account; even a vetting of companies posting would go a long way.


@thumperchick: That seems an excellent idea. Although I've yet to run into a huge problem with spam here, it is annoying when it happens and certainly does not add to the value of the community. I wonder what the mods would have to say on this issue?


Back when Woot deals were justifiably legendary, this would have been an excellent solution. Now, I'd feel bad about penalizing new users for not finding out about us soon enough. Account age is a good compromise, though.


@omnichad : On Deals, they don't have a "contact support" type button at the bottom of the page. On Regular Woot they have customer service links.
Maybe that would solve the problem of those looking for help over here ?


I think it would be a great idea to require at least one woot purchase.


Moderators should... you know.. moderate. If they don't want to moderate then they shouldn't be.. you know.. moderators.


Here's another suggestion: Make it impossible to vote unless you actually open & read the deal before voting.


@zippy the pinhead: I'm not sure about that one. I tend to scroll the titles and vote for some that are clearly a great deal, even though I'm not personally interested in them at the time. Of course, this habit is made possible by those who clearly state the pertinent info in the title. How much do I love those people?!


Limit the number of new deals or questions a white triangle can post in a 24 hour period. It will cut down on the spammer-bombs that fill pages with spam.

Have a function that prevents white triangles from posting new deals if they have 2 or more tattles in a 24 hour period.

Drone attacks on spammers based overseas. Why not?

Auto-delete for any deal with more than 5, 10, 15(?) tattles from different users.


@90mcg112: The only one I disagree with is the auto-delete for high tattles. Some people tattle because they're offended - not because the deal deserves to be deleted.


@mamajamerson: My suggestion was an attempt to find a way to limit unfair downvotes. I have found some really good deals (one today as a matter of fact) that ended up with a lot of anonymous downvotes for no apparent reason. Maybe requiring a reason to vote up/down w/some small response?


@zippy the pinhead: I do see your reasoning. Potentially, requiring a brief reason for a downvote could limit that problem and provide feedback for the wooter who posted the deal. That could be a valuable thing for some, I think.