# 0 second post wait?
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929
**Category:** Feature
**Created:** [June 14, 2018, 11:49pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929 "2018-06-14T23:49:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 11
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Logan\_Devine](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Logan_Devine)
#### Post date: [June 14, 2018, 11:50pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/1 "2018-06-14T23:50:00Z")
For post waits like the “wait 0 secs before posting again” it should say “wait less then a second before posting again. (Precise value 1/15 or so)”
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 12:01am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/2 "2018-06-15T00:01:02Z")
Can you screenshot this? Where exactly are you seeing it?
---
### Author:  [@Logan\_Devine](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Logan_Devine)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 2:55am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/3 "2018-06-15T02:55:21Z")
From an example forum:
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 4:24am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/4 "2018-06-15T04:24:34Z")
Sure, maybe @neil can double check that code path, we have standard time display handlers.
---
### Author:  [@neil](https://meta.discourse.org/u/neil)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 9:32pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/6 "2018-06-15T21:32:26Z")
Ok, [it’s here](https://github.com/discourse/discourse/blob/master/lib/rate_limiter/limit_exceeded.rb#L14-L15):
```plaintext
if @available_in < 1.minute.to_i
time_left = I18n.t("rate_limiter.seconds", count: @available_in)
```
Is “wait less then a second” any better than “wait 0 seconds” though? It’s still silly… Maybe “wait a few seconds”?
---
### Author:  [@Mittineague](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Mittineague)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/7 "2018-06-15T21:48:37Z")
Why not just ceil it to 1 second? Seems like only the Flash would be able to detect the inaccuracy.
---
### Author:  [@cmwebdev](https://meta.discourse.org/u/cmwebdev)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 9:55pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/8 "2018-06-15T21:55:17Z")
Or please try again now?
---
### Author:  [@Mittineague](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Mittineague)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/9 "2018-06-15T22:03:02Z")
Yes, for my response time that would work. Do you feel there is any chance a retry might happen before the full fraction of a second has elapsed?
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [June 15, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/10 "2018-06-15T22:47:04Z")
Whatever is simplest and gets this off our plate is fine by me. 😉
I do like @cmwebdev’s suggestion though!
---
### Author:  [@neil](https://meta.discourse.org/u/neil)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2018, 6:18pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/11 "2018-06-18T18:18:52Z")
I went with “a few seconds” instead of @cmwebdev’s idea because of how the translation strings are created. Invalidating all those translations isn’t worth it in this case imo.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2018, 11:15pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/0-second-post-wait/89929/12 "2018-06-18T23:15:31Z")