Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Do you know where your variables are?
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter

by sundialsvc4 (Abbot)
on Jan 09, 2014 at 17:03 UTC ( #1070001=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter

Well, of course, you can have it both ways.   Some forums allow you to “post anonymously.” That is to say, you are still required to log-in, but you do not have to reveal your identity in a particular post.

A big concern for me would simply be ... spam!   Perhaps we folks on “the west of The Pond” have it luckier than our compadres in England, because I do recall BrowserUK in particular saying that many hours are spent each day eliminating the pure-junk robo postings.   That’s a waste of time for everyone.   (But we hugely appreciate your ongoing efforts!)   Requiring an actual identifiable login ... identifiable, at least, to the gods ... would perhaps help to reduce that problem.   Now, you can have the “anonymity” that you perhaps crave, but you are still accountable ... and you retain the ability to edit your posts, which right now can be lost purely by accident if the session-system takes a powder.

“Post Anonymously” would simply become an attribute of the message.   If it is checkmarked, the posting appears to come from Anonymous Monk, and maybe it doesn’t count for or against your XP.   (Sure, people who care about XP will play with that feature to their own score-advantage, but ... (shrug) ... who cares, really.)   Whether or not it gets counted against the phantom AM user is also who-cares.   I am more interested in not “losing” control of postings due to a pure-technical glitch, and in reducing the opportunities for spam-bots however slightly.


Comment on Re: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter
Re^2: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter
by marto (Chancellor) on Jan 09, 2014 at 17:34 UTC
Re^2: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter
by marto (Chancellor) on Jan 09, 2014 at 17:56 UTC

    Also, as you have been made aware several times, mark your posts appropriately when you update them.

      My concerns for “the PerlMonks popularity contest” disappeared years ago, along with any expectation of courtesy.

      Sure, there are hundreds ... thousands ... of forums on the net, and every single one of them has spam.   Necessarily in every single case except AFAIK this one, that means that there are “spam registered-accounts.”   Only PM gives you a completely open input-box attached to every posting, and immediately displays absolutely anything that anyone anywhere types into it.   I have never thought this to be a good idea.

      However, that is clearly not the central issue that prompted this thread ... nor any of the similar threads including the one I responded-to some time ago.

      Some people around here apparently want “Anonymous Monk” postings to be “accountable” in some way ... presumably(?) so that people who are (presumed to be) “hiding behind Anonymous Monk when they want to vent their spleen” will nevertheless get the negative-XP that they (presumably) “deserve.”   I dunno.   Don’t know, don’t really care.   Tempers flare late at night; liquor flows, sometimes.   People are people.

      My suggestion was, I thought, innocent enough:   to flip the process on its head.   Instead of trying to track anonymous posters, require people to have an account, and let them choose (or un-choose) to be Anonymous [Monk...] if they want to, for any particular post.   (If they want to conceal the fact that they are logged-in, why not.)   Don’t let a posting be made if the user isn’t logged-in or if the session has dropped for any reason (as it often inexplicably does).   Don’t let a posting, once made, “belong to Nobody” and to be therefore forever out-of-reach.   Again, this is a thing that many pieces of forum software do offer.

      I’m not trying to change human behaviors here, either.   People on this forum are often brilliant programmers, and they are also often exceptionally rude.   I’ll take the flies to get the ointment, because that’s what I need this site for.   But as for the technical behavior of the site, when a session goes-south and a post therefore vanishes into the gloom unfinished but beyond-reach, that is a computer behavior bug that I would like to see changed.

        they are also often exceptionally rude.

        Corollary: exceptionally rude to certain people.

        And then *only* when civil discourse and reasoned persuasion have failed to modify frustrating behaviour that borders upon the malicious.

        At school, my favorite teacher was a guy called Guy Swan, my music teacher. I have no aptitude for music then or now, but music was obligatory then and I didn't mind because he was one of those exceptional teachers that was perfectly happy to teach those that wanted to learn; and allow those that didn't to slide so long as they didn't disrupt those that did.

        He also had a (nearly unique in my experience) ability to teach the same material at multiple levels concurrently.

        That latter attribute meant that despite my lack of ability, I came away from each lesson having learned something -- and something that felt valuable enough that I was in the group of those that wanted to learn rather than those that didn't.

        Part of his secret was that he was one of the most laid back characters you'd ever wish to meet. Calm, funny, and forgiving of pretty much anything that was not of malicious intent. Uninformed misunderstanding, or deliberate April Fool, he could take most everything in his stride. Until...

        Gary Evans. A mid-term transferee, and obviously used to being the centre of attention, he chose the music class to try and establish his bona fides as a wide boy. He mistook Guy's laid back nature as an easy touch. He chose to be disruptive. And he chose wrong!

        Guy put Gary in his place in no uncertain terms. (And it worked!)

        Later, the teacher explained, "Sometimes, you just have to shout and swear".


        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
        .

        "Only PM gives you a completely open input-box attached to every posting"

        Nonsense

        "Some people around here apparently want “Anonymous Monk” postings to be “accountable” in some way ... presumably(?) so that people who are (presumed to be) “hiding behind Anonymous Monk when they want to vent their spleen” will nevertheless get the negative-XP that they (presumably) “deserve.”"

        Since you fundamentally don't seem to understand, despite having seen examples of this in the past in threads you have started, that people can register any name and post whatever they want. Why do you hang on to the belief that having an account makes people somehow accountable? How does this make anyone accountable to anyone here?

        "I dunno. Don’t know, don’t really care"

        Then why do you keep posting such nonsense several times a year?

        "My concerns for “the PerlMonks popularity contest” disappeared years ago, along with any expectation of courtesy.

        You seem to feel no accountability for repeatedly spouting technical advice which is proven to be nonsense or even following posting guidelines (as demonstrated by the undocumented edits within this thread). Often you don't show people the "courtesy" of responding to questions people ask you. Yet you continue to post because you don't care what anyone else thinks. People may not be courteous to you if you aren't courteous to them.

        "they are also often exceptionally rude"

        Yourself included.

        "when a session goes-south and a post therefore vanishes into the gloom unfinished but beyond-reach, that is a computer behavior bug that I would like to see changed."

        Prove it's a bug, provide a patch, see if your code passes muster. Since you claim to be so keen to improve things around here.

        Some people around here apparently want “Anonymous Monk” postings to be “accountable” in some way ... presumably(?) so that people who are (presumed to be) “hiding behind Anonymous Monk when they want to vent their spleen” will nevertheless get the negative-XP that they (presumably) “deserve.”"

        Nobody in this thread suggested attaching negative-XP to monks with accounts posting as Anonymous Monk

        > My concerns for “the PerlMonks popularity contest” disappeared years ago, along with any expectation of courtesy.

        Look, I have good news for you, I'm not down-voting you anymore cause I stopped reading your posts long ago.

        Sorry, they are mostly annoyingly ignorant and I don't wanna waste my time and votes.

        Now I'm going one step further, to avoid that my RAT-view gets polluted whenever you post new stuff, I added rules in my CSS settings to blank you out.

        For those interested: Re: Blocking users

        I honestly wish you a nice live! :)

        I'm not bitter or angry, just tired...

        My deepest respect to all the local admins who can't take this step cause they need to check every possible crap nonsense here.

        edit

        This might sound like public mobbing, but you and others deserve to know why I'm not fully participating in the peer-review process anymore.

        Cheers Rolf

        ( addicted to the Perl Programming Language)

        PS: Isn't it ironic that you're account is the best prove that banning anonymous monks wouldn't help? :)

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1070001]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-09-20 19:14 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (160 votes), past polls