However, in practice this sort of approach would likely mean people who don't have anything invested (especially new users) would create multiple accounts to be able to post multiple times.
Rate limiting only works well if there's a stickiness that makes changing accounts more difficult than waiting out the rate limit.
---
While Stack Overflow was set up to handle moderation, the culture evolved to one that disdained any appearance of gate keeping, preservation of any attempt to answer, and that moderation and curation actions on a post were personal attacks on the individual who wrote it.
As tooling was taken away from community moderation and curation it became harder and harder to maintain quality. Additionally, the rule of 90-9-1 (aka The Rule of Participation Inequality - https://www.grazitti.com/blog/the-90-9-1-rule-is-over-its-ti... ) applied to people who are doing moderation and curating means that once it scales above a certain point it becomes impractical if not impossible to curate all of the incoming material.
A little more tweaking may have been possible a decade ago. However, both the culture of people asking questions and the corporate "engagement first" approach have made being a person trying to curate the material fighting against the tide.
There are 3.3k questions that have had a close vote cast that need more people to review them. There have been only 313 reviews today as I write this ( https://stackoverflow.com/review/close/stats ). And that's ignoring the countless thousands of reviews that have timed out.
However, in practice this sort of approach would likely mean people who don't have anything invested (especially new users) would create multiple accounts to be able to post multiple times.
Rate limiting only works well if there's a stickiness that makes changing accounts more difficult than waiting out the rate limit.
---
While Stack Overflow was set up to handle moderation, the culture evolved to one that disdained any appearance of gate keeping, preservation of any attempt to answer, and that moderation and curation actions on a post were personal attacks on the individual who wrote it.
As tooling was taken away from community moderation and curation it became harder and harder to maintain quality. Additionally, the rule of 90-9-1 (aka The Rule of Participation Inequality - https://www.grazitti.com/blog/the-90-9-1-rule-is-over-its-ti... ) applied to people who are doing moderation and curating means that once it scales above a certain point it becomes impractical if not impossible to curate all of the incoming material.
A little more tweaking may have been possible a decade ago. However, both the culture of people asking questions and the corporate "engagement first" approach have made being a person trying to curate the material fighting against the tide.
There are 3.3k questions that have had a close vote cast that need more people to review them. There have been only 313 reviews today as I write this ( https://stackoverflow.com/review/close/stats ). And that's ignoring the countless thousands of reviews that have timed out.
A trend with community moderation is clearly visible and likely too far to be corrected with tweaking.