We don't bite newbies here... much | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
First, thank you for the well thought out response. After posting my reply to you I regretted the tone in certain parts but you've kept it about the subject at hand so — kudos. I still disagree with you. :) It's all great to say "I don't like anonymous monks", but I haven't seen a single posts that shows that whatever anonymous monks do to anger them will not happen if there are names (which can be as anonymous as the user of that name wants it to be) above the posts. However, if the post is made by "anonymous monk", I know it's done anonymously. But if the post is done by "Foo1234", and I go through the trouble of going to his userpage, and find he just signed up, and has no other writings, what do I know? Is it someone wanting to post anonymously, or just the first post on a fast track to sainthood? Which is why I don't think it's a good idea to give a guest all the benefits of an account. I suggested a model similar to news sites where you provide a name, email (hidden from public of course) and probably one of those "are you a human" questions to avoid form spam. There would still be an option to post anonymously but if they sign in as a guest they would receive ONE email inviting them to sign up to the site. I think that maintains a low barrier to entry for new visitors while keeping Anonymous Monk intact. I'm not saying that addresses all the concerns just as is related to potential new Monks.
"...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." — Don Quixote
In reply to Re^4: Anonymous Monk?
by luis.roca
|
|