Can we please stop questioning the need for anonymous AskMe posters to be anonymous? February 5, 2006 3:04 AM Subscribe
Can we please stop questioning the need for anonymous AskMe posters to be anonymous? The posters can't respond, and I find Matt does a decent job of filtering out the questions that have no possible necessity for anonymity. Maybe you can't think of a reason, but then again, it's not your life at issue.
So is this where I say "it would be great if anonymous persons could post additional information in their threads if necessary?"
posted by fixedgear at 3:41 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by fixedgear at 3:41 AM on February 5, 2006
eponymous post
That's been said before.
it would be great if anonymous persons could post additional information in their threads if necessary?
That's been said before and I agree.
And yeah, my request has probably been said before too.
posted by grouse at 4:40 AM on February 5, 2006
That's been said before.
it would be great if anonymous persons could post additional information in their threads if necessary?
That's been said before and I agree.
And yeah, my request has probably been said before too.
posted by grouse at 4:40 AM on February 5, 2006
Evidently, no. We can't.
(That's the Royal "We", of course)
To be less snarky, dontcha think that sometimes comments are less for the original poster than they are for all those who would read them and then take what is said into account whenever they decide to post? I realize it bothers you, but it might just be the kind of policing that keeps things moving along nicely most of the time in all the other threads and soon to be threads.
Case in point, there is a Mefi post by the brother of an amateur photographer who is being (gently for now) advised that it may be unwise, though technically not against the rules, to post a link to a site by a relative - especially one that is potentially not that strong. Now everyone who reads that thread will understand a bit better the dynamics of the site. This seems to work well at helping newer readers get the gist of how things work by constant tweaks and reminders.
So, I say it is a good thing.
posted by qwip at 4:55 AM on February 5, 2006
(That's the Royal "We", of course)
To be less snarky, dontcha think that sometimes comments are less for the original poster than they are for all those who would read them and then take what is said into account whenever they decide to post? I realize it bothers you, but it might just be the kind of policing that keeps things moving along nicely most of the time in all the other threads and soon to be threads.
Case in point, there is a Mefi post by the brother of an amateur photographer who is being (gently for now) advised that it may be unwise, though technically not against the rules, to post a link to a site by a relative - especially one that is potentially not that strong. Now everyone who reads that thread will understand a bit better the dynamics of the site. This seems to work well at helping newer readers get the gist of how things work by constant tweaks and reminders.
So, I say it is a good thing.
posted by qwip at 4:55 AM on February 5, 2006
what fixedgear said.
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:06 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:06 AM on February 5, 2006
The question "why is this post anonymous" is really directed more at Matt as he is the one who makes that call. I think it is a legitimate question.
posted by caddis at 6:34 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by caddis at 6:34 AM on February 5, 2006
"do we really need _____________???"
I'm with quonsar. Underscores are an eyesore.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:34 AM on February 5, 2006
I'm with quonsar. Underscores are an eyesore.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:34 AM on February 5, 2006
grouse is a grouch
<insert embarassing and hilarious flame-out here>
posted by grouse at 6:35 AM on February 5, 2006
<insert embarassing and hilarious flame-out here>
posted by grouse at 6:35 AM on February 5, 2006
I'm with mr_crash_davis. quonsar is an eyesore.
posted by crunchland at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by crunchland at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2006
For the record, here's the thread gwip's talking about (now deleted).
posted by donpedro at 7:39 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by donpedro at 7:39 AM on February 5, 2006
I'm with crunchland. mr_crash_davis is quonsar.
posted by loquacious at 11:23 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by loquacious at 11:23 AM on February 5, 2006
And as if to test the very premise of this thread, we have someone looking for tattoo ideas beneath the cloak of anonymity. Oh, the shame!
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 11:50 AM on February 5, 2006
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 11:50 AM on February 5, 2006
I'm with crash -- question marks should be banned. Especially from Ask MetaFilter. Underscores too, but that's just a bonus after we rid ourselves of the more undesirable punctuation tools.
posted by cedar at 6:22 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by cedar at 6:22 PM on February 5, 2006
A few days ago Matt said he gets a lot of lame anonymous questions that he doesn't publish. That tattoo question is so pathetic, it makes me want to see the questions he doesn't let through. What can people possibly be asking that are less private/embarassing than that?
posted by The Monkey at 7:20 PM on February 5, 2006
posted by The Monkey at 7:20 PM on February 5, 2006
Maybe you can't think of a reason
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
posted by dg at 7:30 PM on February 5, 2006
I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.
posted by dg at 7:30 PM on February 5, 2006
« Older Character limit on AskMe front page | RSS feed of someone's individual contributions Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Dag Maggot at 3:34 AM on February 5, 2006