Please Disallow Anonymous (Guest) Postings

Topic

New Reply

[lmacri]

I would like to see the practice of anonymous (guest) posting discontinued in the AskWoody forums so that everyone who wants to post is required to log in to their forum account and post under their own user name.

I’ve just unsubscribed from Susan Bradley’s Ewaste or Usable – Week 3 thread because an anonymous posters hijacked what was initially an informative and interesting thread and turned it into a personal rant about hidden agendas. Asking users to log into the forum before posting isn’t censorship, and I think it would make anonymous posters think twice before they clicked the “Submit” button and might even reduce the growing lack of civil discourse in this forum that cyberSAR raised concerns about in their 14-Mar-2022 thread What Has Happened to AskWoody?.

• This topic was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by lmacri.

4 users thanked author for this post.

zat_so, Charlie, oldfry, Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

Replies

Anonymous comments are not posted right away, but go to “moderation”, for an MVP to read them and decide if they are OK and belongs in the thread or not. If not, they do not get posted, or if posted, then with a warning note at the bottom, in bold letters, to cut it out. Or they are partially edited, with things considered inappropriate removed and, again, a note at the bottom, in bold laters, explaining that. This is the same as the moderation of comments submitted by subscribers, by the way, although for these it is not automatic, as is for anonymous ones as soon as posting. So, if there were a real problem, as claimed here, the problem would not be with having anonymous guests posting comments, but with the moderation process they go through.

Accepting Anonymous comments is a long established policy at AskWoody, and there are good reasons for maintaining it. As I understand it, some have to do with protecting people working in IT, with useful information to give, but faced with restrictions at work for participating in a site like AW.

Others may explain this further and better.

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Mele20, Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

I don’t like limiting comments unless they violate a specific rule on the site.  As everyone is aware the concept of free speech is a bit under review in this country. That said, I am always reviewing how the site is set up and what policies are followed.

The real problem is still incivility, posters should moderate themselves first and foremost.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

11 users thanked author for this post.

redMagna, wavy, NetDef, Myst, Mele20, lmacri, SueW, Alex5723, satrow, Charlie, Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

Susan Bradley wrote:

I don’t like limiting comments unless they violate a specific rule on the site.

It is this simple to remain anonymous while at the same time being identifiable to other members.  If someone working in IT can’t figure out how to remain anonymous while participating in the AskWoody forums, perhaps they shouldn’t be working in IT.

If a site rule requires registration in order to post (as most forums do), that does not limit comments.  Saying that some “special folks” must be allowed to post as “anonymous” or else they won’t participate just won’t wash.

And you MVP’s and Managers should know who I am by my IP address, shouldn’t you?

Reply | Quote

Online Privacy Guide for Journalists – How to Protect Your Sources (pixelprivacy.com)

There are times and places that people need absolute privacy.  I don’t consider that this site raises to that level.

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

… As I understand it, some have to do with protecting people working in IT, with useful information to give, but faced with restrictions at work for participating in a site like AW.

Unless someone in the IT industry is using their real name for their AskWoody username I don’t see how their true identity could be revealed to their employers. The Posts and Privacy statement at https://www.askwoody.com/posts-and-privacy/ states in part that “we require individuals who sign up for a AskWoody.com account to provide a username and email address – and that’s it. You may provide us with more information – like your name – but we don’t require that information to create an AskWoody.com account.”

As I said in my original post, having a username associated with your post adds a certain level of accountability and it might encourage a few more people to pause and moderate their comments before they hit the Submit button.  It’s about toning down the rhetoric, not censoring anyone’s opinion.

2 users thanked author for this post.

zat_so, oldfry

Reply | Quote

About ” the growing lack of civil discourse in this forum “ mentioned by Imacri:

I have been participating in this forum since 2017, and cannot say there has been much of a change in the tone of the discourse. People have got a bit crankier, perhaps, but that is a general drift in public attitude, and part of it may have to do with the lingering pandemic, the fact that many of us have seriously curtailed going out, having to wear masks, etc. But this crankiness is very rarely directed to each other, and when it happens, it is usually moderated out of existence, but is directed, instead, to certain topics, such as why AskWoody’s Web page is so awfully bad for people with poor eyesight, or whatever (not my opinion, I am OK with the page, but it has been said and more than once.)

 

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

In this thread I’m kind of middle of the road (MoTR). I’m usually disinclined to respond to posters designating themselves as ‘anonymous’. I have and will respond to people with user ‘handles’, and even mentioned that here before I noticed this thread. I will continue to want to ‘see’ living, breathing, naturally-born persons behind all the posts.

Finance, social and tech founder. Managing director of new crowd sourced games in pre-release development. Director on a new consortium to bring fractional ownership of heritage antiquities to the blockchain. My planet-wide talk show for people craving new stories by which to live is Casual Saints.

1 user thanked author for this post.

oldfry

Reply | Quote

A compromise would be to require everyone posting here to have a unique handle and login but allow them to remain “anonymous”. This would be useful to tell one anonymous poster from another. Their email address remains private except to site administrators for these non-paying accounts. Makes it easy to warn or block someone who violates the posting rules and less need to pre-approve these posts from these mostly private non-payers.

[ For many free accounts I use, they don’t have my real name or any correct demographic data provided by me. (But I am sure someone could figure it out, as least manually.) ]

2 users thanked author for this post.

cmptrgy, Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

I personally don’t have anything against anonymous posters on this site, but I do think that some rules should be laid down.  These rules would mainly be there for Anons or anyone else who are overly argumentative, confrontational, or refuse to accept another person’s point of view after multiple attempts to reach a reasonable or amicable conclusion.

Just my 2 cents.

We're getting Sticker Shock everywhere now, not just car dealers.

3 users thanked author for this post.

SueW, Myst, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Charlie: “I do think that some rules should be laid down. These rules would mainly be there for Anons or anyone else who are overly argumentative, confrontational, or refuse to accept another person’s point of view after multiple attempts to reach a reasonable or amicable conclusion.”

I had, not long ago, a comment deleted and I got an WorldPress email informing me that it had been deleted for being “too argumentative.” I had no clue as to what might have been argumentative about a comment that I had posted some days earlier, obviously on something I was not that interested in, because, by then, I had forgotten all about it.

So the “argumentative” rule is in place. at least as far as us subscribers go … Most likely also for the Anonymous. It is a tricky thing to implement properly, though, because it really is a judgement call by whoever decides a comment is “argumentative” in the first place, as “argumentative” is not exactly a crystal clear, unambiguous concept. To be sure, it should be used as a reason for removing a comment when it is part of an increasingly heated argument between a few people, that benefits no one.

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

Well the auto moderation is still a bit over zealous (at least I HOPE it is not a real naturally born person (to use m Austin’s term) ). I got deleted twice for AGREEING with Susan, go figure!

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

3 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, Mr. Austin, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

I didn’t know automatic moderation was in effect. However if I were a manager here (I’m gnot) I’d want that because there’d be soooo much to do.

Finance, social and tech founder. Managing director of new crowd sourced games in pre-release development. Director on a new consortium to bring fractional ownership of heritage antiquities to the blockchain. My planet-wide talk show for people craving new stories by which to live is Casual Saints.

Reply | Quote

RecognizablyAnonymous wrote:

ScotchJohn wrote:

On Windows Secrets Lounge, no-one was anonymous, and I parried words with Woody on why this could not carry over to AW. A little reluctantly, I am convinced by Woody that SOME people would be unable to contribute to AW as freely as they do if they were not anonymous. I still don’t like anonymity, but there may be good reasons for it. On the other hand, if there are no good reasons, then let’s all be out in the open.

I’m pretty much with @ScotchJohn on this one.

Can anyone here at AskWoody reveal my true identity and/or compromise my ability to post anonymously yet retain the ability to be recognized here in these forums?

One can be anonymous without posting anonymously.  And posting in this fashion can take a load off the mods by not having to check IP’s on every anonymous post for possible bad actors.  They only need look at the content to see if the post needs to be trashed for rules violations.

Create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates, in case you need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do. We don't all have to do the same things.

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

I’ve found this site to be quite civilised compared to some forums I’ve been on. I won’t go into too much detail as it’s off-topic for here but I found members of a particular Irish forum to be quite aggressive at times.

I agree with OscarCP that people can be a bit cranky here but I think a lot of that is frustration with where the IT world is going, especially Microsoft. So I totally get it because that has been me at times too.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin, Cybertooth, Charlie, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

steeviebops: “I’ve found this site to be quite civilised compared to some forums I’ve been on.”

Also I have seen forums where newbies or people asking basic questions are rather often treated with metaphorically rolling eyes and just this short, or even not short, of scorn. Here there might be a rare occurrence of that, but most of the time the intention of those replying to someone asking for information or help is to inform or help, or if they can’t help, sympathize and complain along. Like people with rheumatism complaining together about it. Usually the worst that may happen is that someone shifts temporarily a discussion off topic. But even then the off topic topic may be one worth considering and not completely irrelevant.

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin, Cybertooth, wavy, steeviebops

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

but most of the time the intention of those replying to someone asking for information or help is to inform or help, or if they can’t help, sympathize and complain along. Like people with rheumatism complaining together about it.

You gave me a chuckle with that. Merci buckets 😁

Finance, social and tech founder. Managing director of new crowd sourced games in pre-release development. Director on a new consortium to bring fractional ownership of heritage antiquities to the blockchain. My planet-wide talk show for people craving new stories by which to live is Casual Saints.

Reply | Quote

oldfry wrote:

A compromise would be to require everyone posting here to have a unique handle and login but allow them to remain “anonymous”. This would be useful to tell one anonymous poster from another. Their email address remains private except to site administrators for these non-paying accounts. Makes it easy to warn or block someone who violates the posting rules and less need to pre-approve these posts from these mostly private non-payers.

[ For many free accounts I use, they don’t have my real name or any correct demographic data provided by me. (But I am sure someone could figure it out, as least manually.) ]

I believe Anonymous users are handled very well.

At the same time though, I agree with oldfry based on
“This would be useful to tell one anonymous poster from another.”

HP EliteBook 8540w laptop Windows 10 Pro (x64)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

cmptrgy quote: “This [everyone, even “Anonymous”, somehow having a unique handle] would be useful to tell one anonymous poster from another.”

One can tell one anonymous from another by means of the numbers assigned to their comments. For example, this comment is number #2448751 and cmptrgy’s is number #2448750 . Not as convenient as a unique handle, but it works, at least for me.

This also raises an interesting question: Can the anonymous remain anonymous and yet have unique handles? Some of then already sign below the text of the comment with a first name.

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

Reply | Quote

Oscar that is just not making sense to me

OscarCP wrote:

One can tell one anonymous from another by means of the numbers assigned to their comments. For example, this comment is number #2448751 and cmptrgy’s is number #2448750 . Not as convenient as a unique handle, but it works, at least for me.

However you have come close to a good suggestion! If each Anonymous poster used a signature (name below the post) we would have a good idea of what parts the poster played in the string of the thread.

Oh yes I know we could have someone spoof a post as another user but how rare would that be??

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

wavy: “Oscar that is just not making sense to me”

See where it says “it works, at least for me”? It could also work for you, unless you are replying to lots of anonymous comments. In my case, I might answer to an anonymous maybe four times a week, some times to the same person. It’s been never a problem doing this.

And some anonymous have been able to help me with certain problems here, even with a back and forth to explain, or understand things.

Using a handle would be more convenient, but this other way works too — and is no great sacrifice for me to do things accordingly.

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

Reply | Quote

Also see a long Woody’s thread 98774 from 2017; last reply 2020.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

Woody’s opening comment in the 2017 AskWoody thread linked by PaulK, already makes things clear enough, in a nutshell.

It could be summed up further as: “because this world is trickier and more complicated than you know.”

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Mr. Austin

Reply | Quote

Couple of thoughts

1. The world and social media has changed a lot since 2017 and there is increasing oversight.  Case in point the recent upcoming law: California parents could soon sue for social media addiction (msn.com)
2. The site has gone through a change since that post. Based on the post, the use of anonymous was an exception and appears to not have been coded into the site but hand processed. Now there is actual special coding that was done in the core of the bbpress software and is not the norm for sites based on the bbpress software.  The default bbpress software allows non registered folks to enter any “alias” and then an email address that is not posted online. It even slows me down every time there is a bbpress update. I have to hold off and test and roll out the update after testing.
3. Registered users have and do use the trick of not logging in to post things they probably wouldn’t say if they used their login.
4. There are times that people post reporting patching issues and I have no way to follow up.  So anon is not all that it’s cracked up to be.
5. Anon users require approval by a human every time. It’s not automated.  It’s done by volunteers that every time they have to stop, read and approve the post, take time out of answering a question.
6. In this specific case, I approved those comments because the poster accused me of purposely posting to create ad revenue.  I was insulted given that I have not placed ads on the site.  I also ignore the pleas of vendors who want to do sponsored posts and all manner of spammy type of actions that I keep from the site and the newsletter.    The person was a plus member who didn’t log in.  I treat plus members with more respect and normally would not remove a post unless it violated a rule.

Last and certainly not least, policies can – and should – evolve.  The buck stops with me.  I’m still considering based on everything and based on upcoming laws and concerns.

P.S. and off topic, if you have kids or grandkids, give them a hug tonight.

 

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

7 users thanked author for this post.

lmacri, SueW, Mr. Austin, redMagna, oldfry, Alex5723, DrBonzo

Reply | Quote

I discovered AskWoody in about October 2016. I was anonymous at first because I try to maintain as small an online footprint as possible and because I wanted to see if the site was actually as civil as it claimed to be. I registered in about August 2017 after 1) deciding the claim was true, 2) getting what I considered to be excellent help in both quantity and quality (and it seemed to me that many other posters did also), 3) there were times when the anonymous label was just too confusing and cumbersome for me and probably others, and 4) I discovered that from time to time I could offer some help to others.

Many anonymous posters offer excellent advice particularly, in my experience, in the Linux topics, and I would hate to lose that. Every once in a while an anonymous poster seems determined to argue and be generally disagreeable. I realize that there can be legitimate differences of opinion in technical matters, but two anonymous posters in the last week seem to go well beyond that. One seems to think that he/she is innately entitled to Susan’s old computers, and another apparently thinks that the question “Do we need a computer” is stupid. Even after both posters received polite and civil responses, they insisted on pursuing their issues to the point of rudeness (IMHO). Anonymous posters like these two should be asked to leave and if they don’t their posts should be disallowed.

7 users thanked author for this post.

lmacri, wavy, SueW, PKCano, Cybertooth, Charlie, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

This also raises an interesting question: Can the anonymous remain anonymous and yet have unique handles?

Not that I’ve given substantial thought to it, but I figgered it would be easy to remain anonymous on the public sections of the site, even with a designated user handle. Say, for example, one like, “SchmutzOnMyBurgers”. These days, any IT wizard(ess) worth their electrons will know how to shield their IP address, their e-mails, and even their geographical locale with VPNs. Mebbe even their tracking cookies. Yadda, yadda. You get where I’m going with that, right?

Finance, social and tech founder. Managing director of new crowd sourced games in pre-release development. Director on a new consortium to bring fractional ownership of heritage antiquities to the blockchain. My planet-wide talk show for people craving new stories by which to live is Casual Saints.

1 user thanked author for this post.

oldfry

Reply | Quote

PaulK wrote:

Also see a long Woody’s thread 98774 from 2017; last reply 2020.

That comment’s so old I’d forgotten all about it. And when I looked at it I nodded my figurative assent with a “Thanks”.

Finance, social and tech founder. Managing director of new crowd sourced games in pre-release development. Director on a new consortium to bring fractional ownership of heritage antiquities to the blockchain. My planet-wide talk show for people craving new stories by which to live is Casual Saints.

Reply | Quote

The following is not to be read as  a complaint, but as the description of a rare but serious problem that having anonymous participants makes possible:

I think that there is at least one circle here that may need to be squared:

How to make sure that AW subscribers themselves do not post anonymously, by not logging in first to their accounts here, and use this Harry Potter cloak of invisibility to attack from the shadows and troll other users, etc.

This has happened to me, fortunately only a few times in the close to four and a half years that I have been a user here; but it has happened, so it can happen. And I imagine I am not the only one to have been “privileged” in this way. Moderators should have stopped this every time, but they did not: they are human, after all. In at least two of these occasions when someone trolled me in this way, I recognized from the choice of words and other signs the likely attacker, but there was nothing I could do about it as the anon HP invisibility cloak had left me without proof to back up my suspicions. And how do I know I was trolled in this way? Good question, but explaining that would ruffle feathers and do no good. Take my word for it, or ignore this, it’s up to you.

I think this whole question may be summed up in these two points:

(a) Deciding to allow, or not, completely anonymous posting — the issue this thread is about.

(b) Effective and conscientious moderating.

 

(b) Is obvious, so in this particular context, I’ll concentrate on (a) in what follows.

By not allowing “completely” anon posting, I mean things such as making mandatory the use of handles, something like oldfry has suggested here #2448509 , to remove in part the HP cloak and at least know which one of the anons present, while still anonymized, is the attacking troll. This would make this infrequent abuse of anon privileges even rarer, I suspect. Certain agressive “Anonymous Guests”, including those who actually are AW subscribers that choose not to login to gain in this way a measure of impunity, would feel more motivated to behave like good “guests” as now they would be identifiable, if not totally, at least enough and the moderators could be watching closely to spot their like.

The anon handles would be useful here, as subscribers would not have “anonymous handles” assigned to them, that would also be different from those chosen by paying users (e.g. “anon” strings of characters such as numbers).

As with anything in this life, doing the above will have good effects and also perhaps some not so good ones. So this is not something to jump into in a hurry with the “perfect” solution and without much further thought.

As I have already noted, Woody had his reasons for allowing anonymous posting, enough to insert it into the DNA of this site. So it is not something to be decided “once and for all”, right here and right now.

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

Reply | Quote

Susan Bradley wrote:

Last and certainly not least, policies can – and should – evolve.  The buck stops with me.  I’m still considering based on everything and based on upcoming laws and concerns. P.S. and off topic, if you have kids or grandkids, give them a hug tonight.

Thank you Susan for your lucid thought and action.

Finance, social and tech founder. Managing director of new crowd sourced games in pre-release development. Director on a new consortium to bring fractional ownership of heritage antiquities to the blockchain. My planet-wide talk show for people craving new stories by which to live is Casual Saints.

Reply | Quote

Having managed a few “forum based” websites over the past 20 years or so, I can tell you there’s really only two ways you could assign unique identifiers to anonymous posts.

1- implement the sort of tracking that advertisers use to “tag” each individual poster, store that info in a database, and then modify the forum S/W so it uses that stored data to assign the “same” unique identifier to each anonymous poster.

2- require all posters to register and provide a special “guest” option for those who wish to remain anonymous.

I’m positive Susan would never even consider item number 1!

As for item 2, as well as “discouraging” anonymous posts, it’d also basically remove the whole idea of a poster being “anonymous” since the site administrators would know who they were.

Like others I find anonymous posts to sometimes be confusing (was one later in the threat made by the same poster as one previously ) but overall have no problem with allowing them.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Correct, 1 will not occur.  (*) The default way that bbpress handles non registered posters can be seen below and is basically your number 2 method.

Remember this is the default to the software:

Yes, you can ‘make up’ a name and an email address, but it can be more anon identifiable as well.  Currently there is specific php code that I have to hack in each time there is an update that is putting username of “guest” and “anonymous@askwoody.com” as the email address.

(*) Let me make that clear, not gonna happen

Susan Bradley Patch Lady

2 users thanked author for this post.

alejr, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Susan Bradley wrote:

Currently there is specific php code that I have to hack in each time there is an update that is putting username of “guest” and “anonymous@askwoody.com” as the email address.

Maybe change the code so it assigns a unique numeric ID for each anonymous user (something like the last 2 octets of their IP address which “should” be different for each user but not readily traceable back to who they really are) while still using “anonymous@askwoody.com” as their email address?

That would avoid the confusion of not being able to associate multiple posts by the same anon poster when reading thru a thread while still allowing anonymous posts.

Reply | Quote

OscarCP wrote:

Certain agressive “Anonymous Guests”, including those who actually are AW subscribers that choose not to login to gain in this way a measure of impunity, would feel more motivated to behave like good “guests” as now they would be identifiable, if not totally, at least enough and the moderators could be watching closely to spot their like.

I say poppycock to that. You may be getting paranoid Oscar.

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

I agree with OscarCP on this point. Too many people use anonymity to behave in ways they would not if they were readily identifiable.

--Joe

Reply | Quote

wavy:

“I say poppycock to that. You may be getting paranoid Oscar. ”

Not really. Quoting something else I wrote in the same comment and wavy has left out:

“This has happened to me, fortunately only a few times in the close to four and a half years that I have been a user here; but it has happened, so it can happen. And I imagine I am not the only one to have been “privileged” in this way. Moderators should have stopped this every time, but they did not: they are human, after all. In at least two of these occasions when someone trolled me in this way, I recognized from the choice of words and other signs the likely attacker, but there was nothing I could do about it as the anon HP invisibility cloak had left me without proof to back up my suspicions. And how do I know I was trolled in this way? Good question, but explaining that would ruffle feathers and do no good. Take my word for it, or ignore this, it’s up to you.“

Ex Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7) since mid-2020. Now: running macOS Big Sur 11.6 & sometimes, Linux (Mint)

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV and Malwarebytes for Macs.

Reply | Quote

Again requesting that an anonymous poster include a signature at the end of their posts would alleviate some of the confusions with the whole anonymous question.

Could some one use some one else’s sig? Yea, nothing is perfect.

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

2 users thanked author for this post.

OscarCP, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote