Anonymous Replies for AskMe For Several Hours? April 18, 2006 8:16 PM Subscribe
Anonymous posting: time-limited cookies to enable anonymous to reply to their own threads for N hours? Perhaps tied to logins? It seems like the "anonymous" nom de plume really only needs to be a setting that is applied when a thread is marked as such and the original poster is replying. Since most of these questions are for personal, medical, or other advice that usually need more input (perhaps to triangulate its position), it seems useful.
I figured since the comments are still tied to a username, abuse can be taken care of. Perhaps the temptation to flameout would be greater, but, evolution is a bitch and sometimes things do and don't work. :)
As it is, we already get Random Speculation Filter with derision on the poster for not providing enough details, which I don't particularly see as worthwhile either.
posted by kcm at 8:21 PM on April 18, 2006
As it is, we already get Random Speculation Filter with derision on the poster for not providing enough details, which I don't particularly see as worthwhile either.
posted by kcm at 8:21 PM on April 18, 2006
I've got to rewrite the anon system to allow the original authors to comment anonymously, which I will get to eventually. All the other quick fix ideas won't really work and a bit of a rewrite is only way to do it right.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:28 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:28 PM on April 18, 2006
I've got to rewrite the anon system to allow the original authors to comment anonymously, which I will get to eventually.
After the looooooong discussion we had about mechanisms for doing this a month or three back, have you settled on an implementation that might work, Matt?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:03 PM on April 18, 2006
After the looooooong discussion we had about mechanisms for doing this a month or three back, have you settled on an implementation that might work, Matt?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:03 PM on April 18, 2006
Er, that is, work and maintain at least the veneer of anonymity....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:03 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:03 PM on April 18, 2006
Yeah, I have a simple implementation in mind that basically just flags stuff as anon.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:59 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:59 PM on April 18, 2006
since the comments are still tied to a username, abuse can be taken care of
It can still be traced. Taking care of it will be as manual as all get out. Will people do stupid things with the ability to comment anonymously? Especially considering how people like to respond to anonymous questions? You betcha. Stock up on popcorn and await a whole new kind of train wreck.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on April 18, 2006
It can still be traced. Taking care of it will be as manual as all get out. Will people do stupid things with the ability to comment anonymously? Especially considering how people like to respond to anonymous questions? You betcha. Stock up on popcorn and await a whole new kind of train wreck.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on April 18, 2006
What's wrong with expecting anonymous users to cover all the bases before hitting submit? It's no secret that they won't be able to comment in-thread, and anonymity already changes (and I think lessens, but that's another MeTa) the dynamic between asker and answerer.
If Matt implements changes such that anon users can comment in those threads, great, but until that time the rules of the game are quite well-known.
When I see an anonymous thread that lacks in details I usually just skip it. Certainly there are times when a necessary detail is non-obvious, but I think that's the minority.
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:23 AM on April 19, 2006
If Matt implements changes such that anon users can comment in those threads, great, but until that time the rules of the game are quite well-known.
When I see an anonymous thread that lacks in details I usually just skip it. Certainly there are times when a necessary detail is non-obvious, but I think that's the minority.
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:23 AM on April 19, 2006
It sounds like the intent is to allow only the original anonymous poster to be anonymous in comments, and in that thread only. Mathowie could put an 'approve' button on anonymous posts. He clicks 'yes' if he approves, it's posted, and he doesn't have to do anything else. (well, other than write all the stuff to implement it, anyway. :) )
Generalized anonymous access, given the flamewars we're already prone to, seems... suboptimal. It costs $5 for a sockpuppet. If you want anonymity enough to pay for it, it's probably worth granting.
posted by Malor at 5:31 AM on April 19, 2006
Generalized anonymous access, given the flamewars we're already prone to, seems... suboptimal. It costs $5 for a sockpuppet. If you want anonymity enough to pay for it, it's probably worth granting.
posted by Malor at 5:31 AM on April 19, 2006
Actually, if Matt wanted to charge $1 per anonymous question (with the in-thread-posting-improvements and maintaining the one-a-week limit) I'd be all for it.
If folks think that's unfair they could put money into a 'charity fund' for broke anon askers.
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:48 AM on April 19, 2006
If folks think that's unfair they could put money into a 'charity fund' for broke anon askers.
posted by sohcahtoa at 5:48 AM on April 19, 2006
Yeah, I only see the feature for the original anon poster to post comments as anon. I never meant that anon commenting would be a new feature for all in any ask mefi thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:11 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:11 AM on April 19, 2006
charge $1 per anonymous question
I think for most this would be a discount from a $5 sock puppet account. I wonder how many people have posted more than 5 anon. questions?
posted by scarabic at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2006
I think for most this would be a discount from a $5 sock puppet account. I wonder how many people have posted more than 5 anon. questions?
posted by scarabic at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2006
Scarabic - I'm just not convinced people buy sock puppets for anon purposes. But if they do, $5 to Matt is better than $1 to Matt.
posted by sohcahtoa at 10:42 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by sohcahtoa at 10:42 AM on April 19, 2006
I wonder how many people have posted more than 5 anon. questions?
Oh, I might as well come clean. I've asked them all.
posted by scody at 10:52 AM on April 19, 2006
Oh, I might as well come clean. I've asked them all.
posted by scody at 10:52 AM on April 19, 2006
I still think that if the asker gets anonymity, the answerer should be able to as well. Only seems fair.
posted by The Monkey at 5:45 PM on April 20, 2006
posted by The Monkey at 5:45 PM on April 20, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I'm sure some fuckers would abuse their anonymity. Right now, Matt approves the post itself. But if they were allowed to comment, that would mean un-approved anon comments would be hitting the site. I don't know if Matt is ready to take that step.
posted by scarabic at 8:19 PM on April 18, 2006