Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Just another Perl shrine
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter

by Your Mother (Bishop)
on Jan 02, 2014 at 19:22 UTC ( #1069011=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


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

Something I did waaaaaaay back in the day, with some help from this very monastery, to support "anonymous" chat in a site was to do colors based on IP (such that the IP was not displayed, nor reversible, but used to make a hashed color for display of the user's chat session). It's only a good transitory/ephemeral solution though for something like chat and not so hot for the reasons you elaborated: temporal, IP/browser changes, etc.

For your list, JS magic will be disallowed, I expect. And you can't rely on JS for client-side enforcement anyway (with hackers at least).

For the rest: it could work quite well a lot of the time but at least some of the time it will lend a false sense of division to a single user no matter how it's done. With an IP anonymizer and two or three or four... browsers it would be pretty easy to appear to be a gang when it's really just one. And the more specific/careful the technique for keeping the AMs separate, the more likely a single anonymous monk will accidentally appear to be two or more. :|

  • Comment on Re^2: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter
by PopeFelix (Beadle) on Jan 02, 2014 at 22:05 UTC

    For the rest: it could work quite well a lot of the time but at least some of the time it will lend a false sense of division to a single user no matter how it's done. With an IP anonymizer and two or three or four... browsers it would be pretty easy to appear to be a gang when it's really just one. And the more specific/careful the technique for keeping the AMs separate, the more likely a single anonymous monk will <accidentally appear to be two or more. :|

    Yes, this may well create a "false sense of division". As I said in another comment, I'm not worried about that - this isn't intended to cover all possible cases. This is intended to cover a significant majority of cases.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1069011]
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 2019-12-14 14:07 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?