[crazygringo]

Again, you can handle this by rate-limiting and standard anti-abuse measures. To elaborate: don't allow new-ish accounts to post more than one question/answer per day, don't allow allow accounts to more than one question/answer per week/month if their previous content hasn't reached a certain quality threshold of votes, and so forth.

It's entirely possible to set up the system to prevent it from being flooded by content that moderation can't handle. In fact, StackOverflow has already been largely set up that way, and this will just require just a little more tweaking of the types of existing policies that have already been in place for a long time. People attempting to flood internet forums with low-quality content or outright spam isn't anything new.

[shagie]

This works in theory, if people abide by it.

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.

    year close tasks
    2016     581,204 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/340815
    2017     .......
    2018     440,336 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/378415
    2019     318,431 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/392550
    2020     225,745 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/404558
    2021     213,104 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/415250
    2022      96,495 https://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/422885

A trend with community moderation is clearly visible and likely too far to be corrected with tweaking.