Upload limits is not properly implemented, and rejected to bad trimming!?

[geekgarage]

Hi,

So i was trying to upload images and got an error on image 2 some thing about it could not upload, so i tried again and it worked, same story for image 3 (apparently you count errors on your site as uploads). so when i tried to upload the 4’th image (6’th upload), as i had two free spots, i was told the upload limit was 5 a week, I’m sorry, but why have a limit when a user actually have free spots. I would understand if you freeze a spot after it got approved, it would actually make sense to have a 5 or 7 day cool down, but on unused spots makes no sense at all…and is down right frustrating. To be honest, if this a an indication of how your paid service works, I’m really in doubt if I even should waste my time on it.

Why I’m getting so frustrated at your system, is the fact that i got one of the three icons that actually uploaded rejected due to bad trimming. And I’ll give you there is a some space on each side to be exact, 15px. So i trimmed the image from 112w 112h to 82w 112h, saved and tried to reupload and get the message that it should be 100px minimum. Please add this to the rules on the right as i did read them and it said nothing about trimming the image down to minimum 100px if it is just white space. Now i won’t know if the edit i made is enough as i can’t upload and see if you will approve it, as my weekly limit is hit (again, even tho i have free spaces)

I see so many others complain about this, and i see the helpers respond that it is to protect against abuse, but that is simply put, not a good enough excuse to have a badly implemented protection system.

• you could allow 2 upload tries pr. slot, until it is submitted
• when an image gets rejected you should reset uploads for that slot, as in give back 2 upload tries to the account for that slot
• auto timeout accounts for a month who is constantly hitting the limit 2 or 3 weeks in a row (that would be 15 upload every week for free accounts at max if the first two attempts fails for all 5 images
• lock a slot when it got submitted so you would either have it approved and has to wait a week before change or rejected and in this case re upload edit or choose another

I get that implementing the limit is to keep down server bandwidth usage, but no normal user in their right mind would sit and upload to their limit every week just to make your server use more bandwidth. They would upload the images they want as icons in their channel, wait for approval or rejection, reupload edited image if rejected and wait again. Like any legit user, just like i was trying to do, yet i get punished for doing nothing wrong due to the extreme limitations on your site.

The above would be a great balance between offering a service and having protection.

[geekgarage]

Here is a workflow that explains it in a way that is simple to follow

[Techno]

That image is so much more overcomplicated that it needs to be. TLDR; you can click the “upload” button and select an image, 5 times within a 7 day rolling period.

[geekgarage]

What are you talking about. That workflow diagram is a how i think it should be, not how it is currently. I already know it is 5 uploads in 7 days. read the damn post or just move on. Your comment makes no sense as a reply to what i wrote and to what the diagram shows.

[night]

The purpose in the upload limit is to restrict the amount of approval attempts someone can generate per week (since it is a waste of time for emote approvers to reject the same emotes from certain users who resubmit rejected emotes repeatedly).

It’s cool that you think it should work this way, but nobody will ever build such a complicated solution in reality. When you design and build software it’s best to follow the 80/20 rule, whereby you do the least work (20%) to solve the most cases (80%). The system as implemented does that, and does that well. The only “frustrating” case that can happen is if you are uploading and deleting emotes prior to approval, which still counts against your limit. This is rare enough that it poses little issue in practice, however.