in reply to Re: Anonymous Identifier
in thread Anonymous Identifier

++ to judge posts by quality no by (presumed) author -- I definitely agree with that sentiment.

To me, RFC: Hide Very Bad Answers From Visitors doesn't seem to have been as effective as it was intended... or monks are considering posts for reaping without allowing the hide-very-bad-answers to take effect.

I think we have enough measures to handle this.

The need for your plea in the first case, and the number of considerations of bad anonymous posts rather than letting them get de-emphasized properly, leads me to believe that the measures aren't sufficient, or aren't being used properly. Hence the impetus for my PMD.

Further, that doesn't address the other aspect: the "no, I'm the other anonymous monk" issue for following discussions. And a non-reversible, non-personal, but somewhat-uniquely-identifying hash seems a good way to solve that problem.

The latter problem has actually bothered me almost since I first arrived here, but it was never strong enough to be worth suggesting. But now that I've realized that the same solution will also help with the other issues I brought up, I thought it was worth discussing.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Anonymous Identifier
by LanX (Sage) on Feb 23, 2021 at 20:23 UTC

    Techies tend to look for technological solutions for problems, but IMHO this is rather a social one.

    Though discussing an identifier per IP may be worth it in general, I'm sceptique here.

    IMHO evolutionary pressure will only push abuse into other patterns, like VPN tunnels or throw away accounts.

    So please forgive me if I'm not deepening this discussion any further.

    For me it's just another variant of feeding in this asymmetric war. :)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    Wikisyntax for the Monastery