Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Don't ask to ask, just ask
 
PerlMonks  

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

by ruzam (Curate)
on Jan 02, 2014 at 22:34 UTC ( #1069040=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


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

Anonymous by definition means the poster isn't identified.

If you accept anonymous posting then you also have to accept the downsides that go with it. Otherwise, it's no longer anonymous and you might as well just insist that every post come from a registered user and be done with it.

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

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Assigning unique identifiers within a discussion thread to each distinct anonymous commenter
by Old_Gray_Bear (Bishop) on Jan 02, 2014 at 23:22 UTC
    Which, considering the amount of SPAM we are getting from Anonymous Monk lately, might not be a bad idea. If you care enough to participate, then register a handle and go for it.

    I realize that registration might be an inpediment to the "I just have this one simple question" type of User, but that too may not be a bad thing. Besides, often the first AM question generates more question/response pairs (i.e. a thread), so the cost of setting up an account get amortized fairly quickly.

    ----
    I Go Back to Sleep, Now.

    OGB

      Requiring a login before posting will have very near zero impact on spam at PerlMonks. Sometimes spam is posted anonymously, sometimes not. Our spam tools have been made (by necessity) to deal with both anonymous users and new users.

      It gets rather tiring to over and over again read people proposing the obvious solution to the spam problem based on having paid little attention and doing very little thought, as far as I can tell.

      Just because 4 of the last 5 spam posts you noticed all had feature $X in common, you cannot conclude that banning $X will cut spam by 80%. It will prevent a couple of spam postings and require a minor adjustment from the spammer, which is likely to happen quickly and thus lead to absolutely no reduction in spam. Frequently, it even increases the amount of spam because the spammer has to pay a little attention and try some changes.

      And I think it takes only a little contemplation and having paid a little attention to realize this. In the case of logging in, the adjustment is less trivial... except it has already been made. The transition from anonymous posting to logged-in posting rarely takes a spammer much time these days.

      - tye        

      If you care enough to participate, then register a handle and go for it.
      FWIW, I've been posting anonymously lately because I've been using random public wireless networks. I don't like to log in, because of Firesheep attacks.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1069040]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (7)
As of 2019-12-15 15:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?