Anyonymous: signal or noise? December 12, 2004 12:04 PM Subscribe
Have anonymous posts made AskMetafilter better?
I've made an anonymous post recently. It was immensely helpful. With me actually using my real name as a user name, when I make things anonymous it tends to be for a very good reason.
posted by Stan Chin at 12:07 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by Stan Chin at 12:07 PM on December 12, 2004
...although today's anonymous Cat problem post was a little nuts. As if the prospective new owner was going to be suspicious about that and say "A HA! Good thing I google everything!"
posted by Stan Chin at 12:21 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by Stan Chin at 12:21 PM on December 12, 2004
I'm fine with them. They often have been more interesting from my POV - I like questions about ethical and personal problems.
The inability for the poster to reply or provide more information anonymously does lower the quality for me - sometimes answers peter out because in the absence of clarification the answerers can't take it any further.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:22 PM on December 12, 2004
The inability for the poster to reply or provide more information anonymously does lower the quality for me - sometimes answers peter out because in the absence of clarification the answerers can't take it any further.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:22 PM on December 12, 2004
I really like it. There was a post the other day from an alchoholic looking for ways to quit. I doubt he would have posted if he couldn't have done so anonymously.
posted by xammerboy at 12:23 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by xammerboy at 12:23 PM on December 12, 2004
I think anonymous questions will be more helpful (or more chaotic) if anonymous responses ever come to pass.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:28 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:28 PM on December 12, 2004
They only take up more space because there isn't yet a mechanism for posting a "more inside" automatically. With time this will change, I'm sure.
posted by kenko at 12:29 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by kenko at 12:29 PM on December 12, 2004
It's extremely helpful. I've asked one anon question so far, and it was for someone I know. The main page real estate is an issue, but I think Matt got tired of doing the [More inside] bit and having people think Matt was actually asking the question.
Plus all of the current anonymous questions are inherently approved by Matt upon posting, so there's a built in quality filter.
posted by loquacious at 12:39 PM on December 12, 2004
Plus all of the current anonymous questions are inherently approved by Matt upon posting, so there's a built in quality filter.
posted by loquacious at 12:39 PM on December 12, 2004
WolfDaddy - my thoughts exactly.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:06 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by dash_slot- at 1:06 PM on December 12, 2004
I find them interesting, especially as a window to other people's personal problems.
I have a few to ask but they would require anonymous answers. I don't see how that's going to work though.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:26 PM on December 12, 2004
I have a few to ask but they would require anonymous answers. I don't see how that's going to work though.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:26 PM on December 12, 2004
I've also made an anonymous post in the past, and I have to say it was very helpful. My question was something that I could not talk to anyone in 'real life' about, and I knew that by asking it here I was canvassing a pool of diverse, experienced, and thoughtful people. So, from the perspective of the person asking, at least, it has made AskMe better.
posted by jess at 1:54 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by jess at 1:54 PM on December 12, 2004
Most of the anonymous questions really don't need to be asked anonymously. The anonymity sends a signal that the poster-by-proxy is paranoid and/or repressed and/or naive and/or self-centered, and that annoys me and as a result I don't usually want to answer them.
Anonymous answers would, of course, make the whole thing even less interesting, but it's true that the accountability and willingness to speak from personal experience goes both ways. Why should someone say 'Yeah, that happened to me, and here's what I did about it," when you, the poster, won't really even say that it happened to you?
The recent How can I find a home for a troubled pet? anonymous post is the perfect example of why there shouldn't be anon posts, or why the bar for anonymity should be much higher. I actually have been in a similar situation and have advice for this person, but I'm not going to give it because the poster is such a whiny little twit that he/she/it can't deal with the possibility that someone they know in real life might actually discover that they have cats that piss on pieces of furniture. Either that, or they're embarassed about the same info spreading about their online identity within the MeFi community. Either way: welcome to the real world, dumbass. Cats piss on things sometimes, you self-indulgent little shit. If this is really one of the most embarassing things that have ever happened to you, then go out into the cobblestoned streets of your quaint little town and dance a fucking jig.
Almost as bad is post right before it: CreditFilter: Two years ago, not really understanding the importance of good credit behavior, I let a department store card slide for 180 days, twice (I KNOW!). Oh, you poor, poor dear! You didn't wook at your wittle cwedit card statement for 180 days. This impacted my credit history greatly. Yeah, sure it did. 'Greatly' compared to someone who has had three credit cards for 50 years and never missed a payment, maybe. But compared to the majority of people in the capitalist world, you're a fucking saint! Did you take PB&J to school every day with the crusts cut off? 'But Dad, I've got homework to do!' 'That's ok, son, you can do it on the boat!' Does this ring a resounding reverberating bell with you? And then you have the gall to wrap up your question with credit-fixing agencies are NOT an option. Well excuuuuse anyone who might have read your gutless post from a less-than-Puritan of view and might have been inclined in that direction. No, wait...I guess because you posted anonymously, people will respond however the fuck they want! What are you going to do about it, huh, huh, huh? Answer me! Oh, that's right, you can't. Sucks to be you.
Then there's My apartment-mate has a rage problem...smashing dishes and lightbulbs, overturning furniture, tearing down posters, and ripping up papers. Lately it's gotten to be a weekly thing. Ok, here's a hint: if you're going to be that specific, and your apartment-mate knows enough about you and cares enough about what you think that he might actually go looking through all your AskMe posts just in case you wrote something about him, then posting anonymously has really done fuck-all for your privacy. Or maybe your friends and family, who also know your MeFi name and comb the logs for the latest on your life, need to be protected from the knowledge that you're living with someone dangerous?
Since the post before the three discussed above is also anonymous, I might as well touch on it, or it might seem like I willfully left it out because it's an exception. It's still problematic, but at a different level. Asking for help finding a therapist is something that is, it's understood, an embarassing task for some people. However, you probably wouldn't know that this was a good place to ask if there weren't already so many of us who had been quite open about therapy and medication already, and you wouldn't have any hope of getting an answer unless there were some of us who will continue to do so.
posted by bingo at 2:11 PM on December 12, 2004
Anonymous answers would, of course, make the whole thing even less interesting, but it's true that the accountability and willingness to speak from personal experience goes both ways. Why should someone say 'Yeah, that happened to me, and here's what I did about it," when you, the poster, won't really even say that it happened to you?
The recent How can I find a home for a troubled pet? anonymous post is the perfect example of why there shouldn't be anon posts, or why the bar for anonymity should be much higher. I actually have been in a similar situation and have advice for this person, but I'm not going to give it because the poster is such a whiny little twit that he/she/it can't deal with the possibility that someone they know in real life might actually discover that they have cats that piss on pieces of furniture. Either that, or they're embarassed about the same info spreading about their online identity within the MeFi community. Either way: welcome to the real world, dumbass. Cats piss on things sometimes, you self-indulgent little shit. If this is really one of the most embarassing things that have ever happened to you, then go out into the cobblestoned streets of your quaint little town and dance a fucking jig.
Almost as bad is post right before it: CreditFilter: Two years ago, not really understanding the importance of good credit behavior, I let a department store card slide for 180 days, twice (I KNOW!). Oh, you poor, poor dear! You didn't wook at your wittle cwedit card statement for 180 days. This impacted my credit history greatly. Yeah, sure it did. 'Greatly' compared to someone who has had three credit cards for 50 years and never missed a payment, maybe. But compared to the majority of people in the capitalist world, you're a fucking saint! Did you take PB&J to school every day with the crusts cut off? 'But Dad, I've got homework to do!' 'That's ok, son, you can do it on the boat!' Does this ring a resounding reverberating bell with you? And then you have the gall to wrap up your question with credit-fixing agencies are NOT an option. Well excuuuuse anyone who might have read your gutless post from a less-than-Puritan of view and might have been inclined in that direction. No, wait...I guess because you posted anonymously, people will respond however the fuck they want! What are you going to do about it, huh, huh, huh? Answer me! Oh, that's right, you can't. Sucks to be you.
Then there's My apartment-mate has a rage problem...smashing dishes and lightbulbs, overturning furniture, tearing down posters, and ripping up papers. Lately it's gotten to be a weekly thing. Ok, here's a hint: if you're going to be that specific, and your apartment-mate knows enough about you and cares enough about what you think that he might actually go looking through all your AskMe posts just in case you wrote something about him, then posting anonymously has really done fuck-all for your privacy. Or maybe your friends and family, who also know your MeFi name and comb the logs for the latest on your life, need to be protected from the knowledge that you're living with someone dangerous?
Since the post before the three discussed above is also anonymous, I might as well touch on it, or it might seem like I willfully left it out because it's an exception. It's still problematic, but at a different level. Asking for help finding a therapist is something that is, it's understood, an embarassing task for some people. However, you probably wouldn't know that this was a good place to ask if there weren't already so many of us who had been quite open about therapy and medication already, and you wouldn't have any hope of getting an answer unless there were some of us who will continue to do so.
posted by bingo at 2:11 PM on December 12, 2004
bingo, you do have a point - the bar for anonymity seems pretty low.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:27 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:27 PM on December 12, 2004
Bingo, I think you make the perfect case for why those posts should be anonymous. I certainly wouldn't want to associate myself with one of those threads and receive the continual raping that, for example, Ryvar gets for his "rape haiku" thread. Normally, those authors wouldn't have been able to ask their questions for fear of getting the tongue lashing you're providing. The anonymous feature allowed them to get the answers to their questions, which, after all, is what AskMe is for.
posted by Bugbread at 2:31 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by Bugbread at 2:31 PM on December 12, 2004
Hey bingo, you know the nicest thing about anonymous posts?
You can insult total strangers all you want without fear of reprisal. You can sit back from the comfort of your full-disclosure chair and snark away to your miserable little hearts content.
Nice little tirade... but you might want to consider that it's people such as yourself that make anonymity so important. Anyone who can muster up this kind of outrage and vitriol against nameless folks is clearly not anyone a rational person would choose to confide in.
posted by cedar at 2:31 PM on December 12, 2004
You can insult total strangers all you want without fear of reprisal. You can sit back from the comfort of your full-disclosure chair and snark away to your miserable little hearts content.
Nice little tirade... but you might want to consider that it's people such as yourself that make anonymity so important. Anyone who can muster up this kind of outrage and vitriol against nameless folks is clearly not anyone a rational person would choose to confide in.
posted by cedar at 2:31 PM on December 12, 2004
I guess someone is angry they didn't get to do their homework on the boat.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:33 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:33 PM on December 12, 2004
I think we've discovered who the angry roommate! ::hides her boy-band posters from bingo::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:36 PM on December 12, 2004 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:36 PM on December 12, 2004 [1 favorite]
bingo, I think the cat thing was posted anonymously because he was worried someone else in the household would be VERY attached to said kitty and didn't want to offend them without a plan.
It's pretty obvious to me why 180 days person chose to post anonymously: These credit agencies can be total assholes and they didn't want to take the (albeit small) risk that perhaps a credit agency worker also likes MetaFilter.
For Mr. Torn Up Apartment, I think it's safe to say that if the other guy gets ragey, at least he can say "Well, maybe there's someone else doing it!? I don't know."
Sooo, overall, bingo, chill out man! It's not slashdot yet...
posted by shepd at 2:37 PM on December 12, 2004
It's pretty obvious to me why 180 days person chose to post anonymously: These credit agencies can be total assholes and they didn't want to take the (albeit small) risk that perhaps a credit agency worker also likes MetaFilter.
For Mr. Torn Up Apartment, I think it's safe to say that if the other guy gets ragey, at least he can say "Well, maybe there's someone else doing it!? I don't know."
Sooo, overall, bingo, chill out man! It's not slashdot yet...
posted by shepd at 2:37 PM on December 12, 2004
What Bingo said. The circumstances where one needs to be anonymous are damn few and far between, despite the many times one might want to be anonymous.
I really wish Matt would be much more selective in what he chooses for posting, both in terms of quality of question and need for anonymity.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:00 PM on December 12, 2004
I really wish Matt would be much more selective in what he chooses for posting, both in terms of quality of question and need for anonymity.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:00 PM on December 12, 2004
I think the cat question was anonymous because the poster didn't want all kinds of crap from people regarding needing to dispose of the animal. Previous questions on the topic would lead a reasonable person to come to that conclusion.
posted by konolia at 3:09 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by konolia at 3:09 PM on December 12, 2004
Is the anonymous function for people who need to feel anonymous, though, or for people who won't ask their question unless it's anonymous? If, in parallel with the blue, "The question is king" (and the answers are, I dunno, prime ministers or something), then it's more important to have a person post anonymously if it gets their question answered than to deny them anonymity because we don't feel they need it, and have the question unasked and unanswered.
posted by Bugbread at 3:25 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by Bugbread at 3:25 PM on December 12, 2004
aren't as fun or involving to read, discuss, or research
i wasn't aware this was a major criteria for askme posts.
posted by ifjuly at 3:28 PM on December 12, 2004
i wasn't aware this was a major criteria for askme posts.
posted by ifjuly at 3:28 PM on December 12, 2004
I think there should be a bar for Anon questions too.
1. Must be personal, family/friends/direct.
2. Must be an issue requiring anonymity (sexuality/selective law issues/polarizing questions)
3. Non embarrassing or non personal (why are ships referred to as a "she"?) questions should be denied for the reason of data real estate
4. Cannot be political, may have minor political complications but direct and most indirect issues stemming from question should not be asked anonymously
5. Mefi users who have developed a name for themselves may find usefulness in AnonAskme, but the question must not break rules 1-4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone wants to answer the question in parentheses, please do. Wikipedia didn't help.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:33 PM on December 12, 2004
1. Must be personal, family/friends/direct.
2. Must be an issue requiring anonymity (sexuality/selective law issues/polarizing questions)
3. Non embarrassing or non personal (why are ships referred to as a "she"?) questions should be denied for the reason of data real estate
4. Cannot be political, may have minor political complications but direct and most indirect issues stemming from question should not be asked anonymously
5. Mefi users who have developed a name for themselves may find usefulness in AnonAskme, but the question must not break rules 1-4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone wants to answer the question in parentheses, please do. Wikipedia didn't help.
posted by Keyser Soze at 3:33 PM on December 12, 2004
Echoing what bugbread said. Bingo makes a good case why more posts should be anonymous. People want answers and advice not hasty judgement about their lives.
posted by vacapinta at 3:56 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by vacapinta at 3:56 PM on December 12, 2004
'If anyone wants to answer the question in parentheses, please do. Wikipedia didn't help'
Ships are referred to as "she" because the best ones always go down.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:58 PM on December 12, 2004
Ships are referred to as "she" because the best ones always go down.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:58 PM on December 12, 2004
aren't as fun or involving to read, discuss, or research
i wasn't aware this was a major criteria for askme posts.
It is a criteria for whether or not I consider anonymous AskMe posts to be an improvement to the site, which is what I was addressing.
posted by Hildago at 4:00 PM on December 12, 2004
i wasn't aware this was a major criteria for askme posts.
It is a criteria for whether or not I consider anonymous AskMe posts to be an improvement to the site, which is what I was addressing.
posted by Hildago at 4:00 PM on December 12, 2004
If anyone wants to answer the question in parentheses, please do. Wikipedia didn't help
Proverbs 31?
Ships are referred to as "she" because the best ones always go down.
....but that's a good reason, too.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:04 PM on December 12, 2004
Proverbs 31?
Ships are referred to as "she" because the best ones always go down.
....but that's a good reason, too.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:04 PM on December 12, 2004
bugbread: I certainly wouldn't want to associate myself with one of those threads and receive the continual raping that, for example, Ryvar gets for his "rapet haiku" thread.
...but he got that kind of reprisal because people were trying to reinforce/enforce/advocate standards, and community-influenced (if not community-driven) standards are part of what makes posting on metafilter different from posting most other places. There is a sense of an aspiration to a higher quality here, and that sense is not going to be helped by lack of accountability.
cedar: You can insult total strangers all you want without fear of reprisal. You can sit back from the comfort of your full-disclosure chair and snark away to your miserable little hearts content.
Yes, that's right, and I will. It's the only weapon available to me in this case. But if you're one of the posters I'm attacking and you want to come out and say so, I'll say the same things to you directly.
shepd: Your assumptions about the rationale behind anonymity in those cases are probably correct, but it's still awfully thin rationale.
And konolia, the kind of responses your talking about are just as likely to come when the question is asked anonymously. (I love cats, btw.)
On preview, bugbread, although we obviously disagree about this issue as a whole, you do a good job of crystalizing the controversy when you ask: Is the anonymous function for people who need to feel anonymous, though, or for people who won't ask their question unless it's anonymous?
That is indeed the real question we're talking about here. In my view, it's the latter reason, although I would change the wording slightly: Is the anonymous function for people who [want] to feel anonymous, though, or for people who [can't] ask their question unless it's anonymous?
posted by bingo at 4:06 PM on December 12, 2004
...but he got that kind of reprisal because people were trying to reinforce/enforce/advocate standards, and community-influenced (if not community-driven) standards are part of what makes posting on metafilter different from posting most other places. There is a sense of an aspiration to a higher quality here, and that sense is not going to be helped by lack of accountability.
cedar: You can insult total strangers all you want without fear of reprisal. You can sit back from the comfort of your full-disclosure chair and snark away to your miserable little hearts content.
Yes, that's right, and I will. It's the only weapon available to me in this case. But if you're one of the posters I'm attacking and you want to come out and say so, I'll say the same things to you directly.
shepd: Your assumptions about the rationale behind anonymity in those cases are probably correct, but it's still awfully thin rationale.
And konolia, the kind of responses your talking about are just as likely to come when the question is asked anonymously. (I love cats, btw.)
On preview, bugbread, although we obviously disagree about this issue as a whole, you do a good job of crystalizing the controversy when you ask: Is the anonymous function for people who need to feel anonymous, though, or for people who won't ask their question unless it's anonymous?
That is indeed the real question we're talking about here. In my view, it's the latter reason, although I would change the wording slightly: Is the anonymous function for people who [want] to feel anonymous, though, or for people who [can't] ask their question unless it's anonymous?
posted by bingo at 4:06 PM on December 12, 2004
...but he got that kind of reprisal because people were trying to reinforce/enforce/advocate standards, and community-influenced (if not community-driven) standards are part of what makes posting on metafilter different from posting most other places. There is a sense of an aspiration to a higher quality here, and that sense is not going to be helped by lack of accountability.
Definitely agreed. It was just the first example that I could think of of a person's name being besmirched by posts in one thread, where the same topic got brought into other threads that were unrelated. I certainly don't think there should be any anonymous in the blue or grey. I'm sure there were better examples, but I only started paying attention to individual user names after paying my five.
I guess I can just visualize someone asking about cat abandonment without anon, only to find the whole cat abandonment topic brought up as a cheap jab throughout the rest of the filters.
On preview, bugbread, although we obviously disagree about this issue as a whole, you do a good job of crystalizing the controversy when you ask:
Is the anonymous function for people who need to feel anonymous, though, or for people who won't ask their question unless it's anonymous?
Oh, the sweet irony. When I read that, I thought, "That's what I typed?!" I meant to say "Is the anonymous function for people who we feel need to be anonymous" (or, to remove ourselves explicitly but not implicitly, "Is the anonymous function for people who need to be anonymous"). It's the end of my fourth night shift in a row, so my mind is slipping. However, your comments indicate that you understood what I meant to say, even though I didn't actually manage to say it.
The most disorienting thing about sleep deprivation is how you can feel like you are making total sense, only to look back later and realize how wrong you were
posted by Bugbread at 4:19 PM on December 12, 2004
Definitely agreed. It was just the first example that I could think of of a person's name being besmirched by posts in one thread, where the same topic got brought into other threads that were unrelated. I certainly don't think there should be any anonymous in the blue or grey. I'm sure there were better examples, but I only started paying attention to individual user names after paying my five.
I guess I can just visualize someone asking about cat abandonment without anon, only to find the whole cat abandonment topic brought up as a cheap jab throughout the rest of the filters.
On preview, bugbread, although we obviously disagree about this issue as a whole, you do a good job of crystalizing the controversy when you ask:
Is the anonymous function for people who need to feel anonymous, though, or for people who won't ask their question unless it's anonymous?
Oh, the sweet irony. When I read that, I thought, "That's what I typed?!" I meant to say "Is the anonymous function for people who we feel need to be anonymous" (or, to remove ourselves explicitly but not implicitly, "Is the anonymous function for people who need to be anonymous"). It's the end of my fourth night shift in a row, so my mind is slipping. However, your comments indicate that you understood what I meant to say, even though I didn't actually manage to say it.
The most disorienting thing about sleep deprivation is how you can feel like you are making total sense, only to look back later and realize how wrong you were
posted by Bugbread at 4:19 PM on December 12, 2004
I guess I can just visualize someone asking about cat abandonment without anon, only to find the whole cat abandonment topic brought up as a cheap jab throughout the rest of the filters.
Sure, but the people who bring it up as a cheap jab won't be anonymous, and they can be berated for doing so, and that berating can serve as an incentive for others not to do it, and so on.
posted by bingo at 4:29 PM on December 12, 2004
Sure, but the people who bring it up as a cheap jab won't be anonymous, and they can be berated for doing so, and that berating can serve as an incentive for others not to do it, and so on.
posted by bingo at 4:29 PM on December 12, 2004
why do anonymous posts have to be fun while normal ones don't? i'm genuinely wondering.
posted by ifjuly at 4:33 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by ifjuly at 4:33 PM on December 12, 2004
This seems like a pretty polarizing issue. I think that the ability to post questions (semi- Matt knows who requested the post) anonymously needs to be balanced with the ability to reply to those posts anonymously. The inability for the question asker to enter the thread is also definitely limiting.
I felt uncomfortable discussing the alcoholism-quitting issue because I'm a borderline functional. However, if the submitter had felt comfortable enough in this community to post under their pseudonym, I might have felt comfortable enough to have tried to contribute a solution, experience, or weigh in with a "me too."
login was a really useful emergency valve. Perhaps, now that it's possible to become a new member again, login might be re-instated on a trial basis? yes I realize that's just shy of asking for another 8/1
Alternatively, can askme threads be tagged as pseudonym only/psuedonym optional? yeah, I know, this isn't a very good idea
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:37 PM on December 12, 2004
I felt uncomfortable discussing the alcoholism-quitting issue because I'm a borderline functional. However, if the submitter had felt comfortable enough in this community to post under their pseudonym, I might have felt comfortable enough to have tried to contribute a solution, experience, or weigh in with a "me too."
login was a really useful emergency valve. Perhaps, now that it's possible to become a new member again, login might be re-instated on a trial basis? yes I realize that's just shy of asking for another 8/1
Alternatively, can askme threads be tagged as pseudonym only/psuedonym optional? yeah, I know, this isn't a very good idea
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:37 PM on December 12, 2004
How about this for a new standard:
You can only ask questions that many other people are going to find interesting to answer.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:40 PM on December 12, 2004
You can only ask questions that many other people are going to find interesting to answer.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:40 PM on December 12, 2004
I felt uncomfortable discussing the alcoholism-quitting issue because I'm a borderline functional. However, if the submitter had felt comfortable enough in this community to post under their pseudonym, I might have felt comfortable enough to have tried to contribute a solution, experience, or weigh in with a "me too."
This is an argument I've made several time to no great effect: if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
Difficult questions often require difficult, personal answers. We've had a few depression-therapy questions and those threads have brought on a wealth of people daring to share their experience. If those threads had been anonymous they would not have been as thoroughly-discussed, nor would they have been as supportive of the question-asker.
Once again: I very much dislike the anonymity. I feel it closes more doors than it opens, and removes from the community instead of contributing.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:45 PM on December 12, 2004
This is an argument I've made several time to no great effect: if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
Difficult questions often require difficult, personal answers. We've had a few depression-therapy questions and those threads have brought on a wealth of people daring to share their experience. If those threads had been anonymous they would not have been as thoroughly-discussed, nor would they have been as supportive of the question-asker.
Once again: I very much dislike the anonymity. I feel it closes more doors than it opens, and removes from the community instead of contributing.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:45 PM on December 12, 2004
This is an argument I've made several time to no great effect: if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
My gut-response counterargument would be that perhaps the question asker has not had the experience of overcoming a situation, while others who have previously overcome said situation may be in a position to help.
I strongly agree with your argument on community. But Matt is the evil genious descartes-ian behind this mutual hallucination. His views on what kind of community the 'filter should to be ought to be the one we live with.
As an aside - there have been very intruiging anonymous questions, which we would not have been exposed to (nor to the answers) if not for the anon feature. Then again, some of the anon questions have been somewhat slimey (but then I just wanted moreso to know who asked the question).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:54 PM on December 12, 2004
My gut-response counterargument would be that perhaps the question asker has not had the experience of overcoming a situation, while others who have previously overcome said situation may be in a position to help.
I strongly agree with your argument on community. But Matt is the evil genious descartes-ian behind this mutual hallucination. His views on what kind of community the 'filter should to be ought to be the one we live with.
As an aside - there have been very intruiging anonymous questions, which we would not have been exposed to (nor to the answers) if not for the anon feature. Then again, some of the anon questions have been somewhat slimey (but then I just wanted moreso to know who asked the question).
posted by PurplePorpoise at 4:54 PM on December 12, 2004
I agree bingo though your 2nd to last example (room mate going psycho) I think is a good example of the need for anonymity. Question isn't really whether someone in their "real world" will find out about it but whether we will find out and whether that will become a source for snarking later.
I would post my own personal questions should the need arise, from where I stand as 'squeak' this is already anonymous enough. But I can understand those who don't want to attach a nom de plume to personal questions.
As for those who answer, no one is forcing anyone to say, "me too!!!". There is no obligation to comment nor offer their own personal experience in the comments unless the poster wants too. Is it fair? Not so sure, since I can understand both sides of the debate.
Overall, I agree there needs to be a higher standard for anonymous posts.
posted by squeak at 5:02 PM on December 12, 2004
I would post my own personal questions should the need arise, from where I stand as 'squeak' this is already anonymous enough. But I can understand those who don't want to attach a nom de plume to personal questions.
As for those who answer, no one is forcing anyone to say, "me too!!!". There is no obligation to comment nor offer their own personal experience in the comments unless the poster wants too. Is it fair? Not so sure, since I can understand both sides of the debate.
Overall, I agree there needs to be a higher standard for anonymous posts.
posted by squeak at 5:02 PM on December 12, 2004
Interesting timing, I was thinking of making a MeTa post after the recent run of Anons. I'm more or less in the bingo camp on this one and feel Matt should approve far fewer of them.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:14 PM on December 12, 2004
posted by billsaysthis at 5:14 PM on December 12, 2004
bingo: "But if you're one of the posters I'm attacking and you want to come out and say so, I'll say the same things to you directly."
Nope, I'll pretty much say anything in public. You can even ask my ex-wives (any of them).
In terms of the more general issue, I don't think there should be any specific criteria for anon questions. It's unreasonable for any of us to project what we're comfortable with upon another -- there is a prolific poster here who frequently mentions his experience giving head even though he's straight -- this is something that if, and I emphasize the if, it were me I would be inclined to keep to myself. He, however, is fine with it and it's not for me to determine his comfort level.
In my long winded silly way, what I'm trying to say is just because you don't see the need for anonymity it doesn't mean that the poster doesn't. If the green is going to continue being an useful resource the focus has to remain on those asking the questions -- I don't see anything to be gained by demeaning them.
posted by cedar at 5:25 PM on December 12, 2004
Nope, I'll pretty much say anything in public. You can even ask my ex-wives (any of them).
In terms of the more general issue, I don't think there should be any specific criteria for anon questions. It's unreasonable for any of us to project what we're comfortable with upon another -- there is a prolific poster here who frequently mentions his experience giving head even though he's straight -- this is something that if, and I emphasize the if, it were me I would be inclined to keep to myself. He, however, is fine with it and it's not for me to determine his comfort level.
In my long winded silly way, what I'm trying to say is just because you don't see the need for anonymity it doesn't mean that the poster doesn't. If the green is going to continue being an useful resource the focus has to remain on those asking the questions -- I don't see anything to be gained by demeaning them.
posted by cedar at 5:25 PM on December 12, 2004
Ships are referred to as "she" because the best ones always go down.
Boyzone. Moreover, completely superfluous boyzone, as "going down" applies equally to men and women. But thanks for that, crash.
I like having the anonymous option. I go to meet ups and consider several readers my friends, and I date someone on the site. It is nice knowing the option to post something personal without attaching my identity would be available to me. And what cedar and Stan Chin and bugbread said. As I've said before, when did it become so imperative for certain members to try to gerrymander this site to fit their exact needs and no one elses?
if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
Answers may always be dissassociated from the poster personally. "My friend went through this . . ." etc. Moreover, if there is a problem here it will ultimately fix itself, with anonymous questions not getting any answers. If anything, I think the opposite is true, and people respond more to anonymous posts than to regular posts. So I think this issue is a strawman.
posted by onlyconnect at 5:30 PM on December 12, 2004
Boyzone. Moreover, completely superfluous boyzone, as "going down" applies equally to men and women. But thanks for that, crash.
I like having the anonymous option. I go to meet ups and consider several readers my friends, and I date someone on the site. It is nice knowing the option to post something personal without attaching my identity would be available to me. And what cedar and Stan Chin and bugbread said. As I've said before, when did it become so imperative for certain members to try to gerrymander this site to fit their exact needs and no one elses?
if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
Answers may always be dissassociated from the poster personally. "My friend went through this . . ." etc. Moreover, if there is a problem here it will ultimately fix itself, with anonymous questions not getting any answers. If anything, I think the opposite is true, and people respond more to anonymous posts than to regular posts. So I think this issue is a strawman.
posted by onlyconnect at 5:30 PM on December 12, 2004
five fresh fish: if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
I agree with five fresh fish, bingo, et al. The feature is great and truly welcome but the bar needs be just a bit higher. The idea of being able to comment anonymously is bad as I suspect the snarkiness level will be much higher meaning Number One will have entirely too many snarky comments to sift through. If you really felt compelled to chime in anonymously drop an email and see how quick it is rebuffed.
posted by geekyguy at 5:30 PM on December 12, 2004
I agree with five fresh fish, bingo, et al. The feature is great and truly welcome but the bar needs be just a bit higher. The idea of being able to comment anonymously is bad as I suspect the snarkiness level will be much higher meaning Number One will have entirely too many snarky comments to sift through. If you really felt compelled to chime in anonymously drop an email and see how quick it is rebuffed.
posted by geekyguy at 5:30 PM on December 12, 2004
"Answers may always be dissassociated from the poster personally. "My friend went through this . . ." etc."
Remember when I asked about my friend who was facing jailtime for stealing beer? It still comes up, and I still get pointed at. So my personal experience speaks differently. I think the "My friend..." questions can be perceived depending on the person. I notice that a lot of the anon questions outright suck but the diamond in the rough almost makes it worth it.
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:08 PM on December 12, 2004
Remember when I asked about my friend who was facing jailtime for stealing beer? It still comes up, and I still get pointed at. So my personal experience speaks differently. I think the "My friend..." questions can be perceived depending on the person. I notice that a lot of the anon questions outright suck but the diamond in the rough almost makes it worth it.
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:08 PM on December 12, 2004
why do anonymous posts have to be fun while normal ones don't? i'm genuinely wondering.
Two things about that:
1. Fun or involving -- that is, enjoyable, or otherwise demanding of involvement for me.
2. They don't have to be fun, but since I am evaluating them in comparison to unanonymous posts, in order to see if they've improved the site, I use the first criteria that come to mind. They're not the only criteria I would use, nor are they something I'm saying everybody has to use. This wasn't intended to be a thesis.
posted by Hildago at 6:24 PM on December 12, 2004
Two things about that:
1. Fun or involving -- that is, enjoyable, or otherwise demanding of involvement for me.
2. They don't have to be fun, but since I am evaluating them in comparison to unanonymous posts, in order to see if they've improved the site, I use the first criteria that come to mind. They're not the only criteria I would use, nor are they something I'm saying everybody has to use. This wasn't intended to be a thesis.
posted by Hildago at 6:24 PM on December 12, 2004
onlyconnect: As I've said before, when did it become so imperative for certain members to try to gerrymander this site to fit their exact needs and no one elses?
To be frank, I think that's built into the nature of the site/community, and that's part of what makes it good. People can 'gerrymander' all they want, and other 'gerrymanders' will disagree with them, and through a combination of mathowie's direct influence, and the less direct influence of the discourse itself, a kind of culture is created, and I like it.
posted by bingo at 6:25 PM on December 12, 2004
To be frank, I think that's built into the nature of the site/community, and that's part of what makes it good. People can 'gerrymander' all they want, and other 'gerrymanders' will disagree with them, and through a combination of mathowie's direct influence, and the less direct influence of the discourse itself, a kind of culture is created, and I like it.
posted by bingo at 6:25 PM on December 12, 2004
This is an argument I've made several time to no great effect: if one can't be bothered to brave one's own question, why should anyone else be brave enough to answer?
I've posted anonymously twice, because the issues raised in my questions involved other people as well as myself. While I may have been okay in asking about my portion of the issue without the anon-ability, I did not have the right to compromise the interests of the other parties in order to get help for myself. I see the current raging roommate question as such as situation -- had the asker of that question used their name, and raging roommate found out, rager could have certainly used it against the asker either by acting violently toward them or making a slander claim or worse.
There have been questions that didn't need to be anonymous, but better to have a good question asked unnecessarily anonymously and for someone to get some help that is meaningful than for things to be left unposted.
All of the complaints about the quality of posts of late leave me thinking very strongly that some people need to remember that there is no reason nor requirement that every post needs to appeal to them. If a thread on the Blue or a question on the Green doesn't ring your bell, skip over it.
posted by Dreama at 8:22 PM on December 12, 2004
I've posted anonymously twice, because the issues raised in my questions involved other people as well as myself. While I may have been okay in asking about my portion of the issue without the anon-ability, I did not have the right to compromise the interests of the other parties in order to get help for myself. I see the current raging roommate question as such as situation -- had the asker of that question used their name, and raging roommate found out, rager could have certainly used it against the asker either by acting violently toward them or making a slander claim or worse.
There have been questions that didn't need to be anonymous, but better to have a good question asked unnecessarily anonymously and for someone to get some help that is meaningful than for things to be left unposted.
All of the complaints about the quality of posts of late leave me thinking very strongly that some people need to remember that there is no reason nor requirement that every post needs to appeal to them. If a thread on the Blue or a question on the Green doesn't ring your bell, skip over it.
posted by Dreama at 8:22 PM on December 12, 2004
The level of nastiness around here is exactly the reason people may want to ask questions anonymously that wouldn't necessarily have to be. Just look at some of the rants directed towards these faceless people right here in this thread ... and who are we to say what is a valid reason for someone to not have their question forever associated with their user name? I'm betting that the person who posted that other cat question and got chewed out for not planning their life for the next 20 years wishes they had either not asked at all or done so anonymously.
there is no reason nor requirement that every post needs to appeal to them
Amen, Dreama. I don't see that every question has to be fun, entertaining or engaging to every reader. I personally find 99% of the computer questions to be boring, and so I don't bother reading them. I was under the impression that Ask Metafilter was meant to to provide answers to people's questions, not be a source of endless entertainment. I don't find a great deal of the whole of the three parts of Metafilter to be entertaining or useful to me, but I take what is and I enjoy it. I don't bitch about the stuff that doesn't float my boat and demand it be disappeared. Someone else may have different needs and tastes.
why are ships referred to as a "she"
There are several explanations for this. Some say during the early days of sailing every ship was always dedicated to some goddess, and as a result the ship was referred to as "she". Another theory is that the crew always thought the ship represented their mother and as a result treated it with a great deal of respect. In most Romance languages the ship is always referred to as "she" and it is quite possible that English sailors began to adopt this practice as well. - source
Answered by the first link on a Google search for ships called she, which means it would be a sucky question whether it was anonymous or not.
posted by Orb at 9:20 PM on December 12, 2004
there is no reason nor requirement that every post needs to appeal to them
Amen, Dreama. I don't see that every question has to be fun, entertaining or engaging to every reader. I personally find 99% of the computer questions to be boring, and so I don't bother reading them. I was under the impression that Ask Metafilter was meant to to provide answers to people's questions, not be a source of endless entertainment. I don't find a great deal of the whole of the three parts of Metafilter to be entertaining or useful to me, but I take what is and I enjoy it. I don't bitch about the stuff that doesn't float my boat and demand it be disappeared. Someone else may have different needs and tastes.
why are ships referred to as a "she"
There are several explanations for this. Some say during the early days of sailing every ship was always dedicated to some goddess, and as a result the ship was referred to as "she". Another theory is that the crew always thought the ship represented their mother and as a result treated it with a great deal of respect. In most Romance languages the ship is always referred to as "she" and it is quite possible that English sailors began to adopt this practice as well. - source
Answered by the first link on a Google search for ships called she, which means it would be a sucky question whether it was anonymous or not.
posted by Orb at 9:20 PM on December 12, 2004
Bingo, on your first post in this thread: It's all fine and well to demand such standards for yourself, especially because it seems pretty clear it's within your comfort zone.
And generally, objectively speaking - with whatever lumbering, primordial portion of my brain that wholeheartedly supports Objectivism - you're pretty much right.
However you cannot demand nor expect others to have the same comfort zone as you, even if it may be (or may not be) the evolved position to take.
The general tone your post makes me feel that the anonymity is a valid feature, though I support the argument that perhaps the bar should be higher.
Though, the valid reasons for posting anonymously are so vast and multifaceted, it's unlikely we can come up with a fair metric to judge them all by. Also, the ability for users to ask pertinent anonymous questions can help them evolve and expand their comfort zone in ways you may have already forgotten, or perhaps never had the misfortune of having to learn. And if you have had to go through these steps, why'd you forget what it was like?
Not everyone learns to ride a bike without using training wheels, and it's certainly not your judgement call to ban them outright.
posted by loquacious at 11:31 PM on December 12, 2004
And generally, objectively speaking - with whatever lumbering, primordial portion of my brain that wholeheartedly supports Objectivism - you're pretty much right.
However you cannot demand nor expect others to have the same comfort zone as you, even if it may be (or may not be) the evolved position to take.
The general tone your post makes me feel that the anonymity is a valid feature, though I support the argument that perhaps the bar should be higher.
Though, the valid reasons for posting anonymously are so vast and multifaceted, it's unlikely we can come up with a fair metric to judge them all by. Also, the ability for users to ask pertinent anonymous questions can help them evolve and expand their comfort zone in ways you may have already forgotten, or perhaps never had the misfortune of having to learn. And if you have had to go through these steps, why'd you forget what it was like?
Not everyone learns to ride a bike without using training wheels, and it's certainly not your judgement call to ban them outright.
posted by loquacious at 11:31 PM on December 12, 2004
All of the complaints about the quality of posts of late leave me thinking very strongly that some people need to remember that there is no reason nor requirement that every post needs to appeal to them. If a thread on the Blue or a question on the Green doesn't ring your bell, skip over it.
Is this still, after being explained twice, the way this statement is being interpreted? Again, the question is not whether anonymous questions are legitimate or not, but whether anonymous posts have improved your experience with AskMetafilter, whether they have made it better in your opinion. If someone had to skip over more posts that didn't ring his bell, for instance, that would be a reason to say they have not improved the site, according to his own personal rubric. This was meant to be a survey, but it's being taken as if it were an trollish callout, and I'm starting to think it wasn't my poor phrasing that did it.
posted by Hildago at 11:45 PM on December 12, 2004
Hildago, apologies. I don't feel that I misinterpreted your post - and I'm not saying you feel that I did - it's just that bingo's rather volatile post annoyed me.
To answer your question, I feel that it is an improvement. (Yeah, it's probably pretty clear that I feel that way from my comments, but just in case and just to be clear. The obvious is frequently elusive.)
I don't feel that your post is a callout, but with the way things have been going lately there haven't been very many unloaded, objective questions posted to MeTa, so it's probably pretty easy to read too much into any similar post.
posted by loquacious at 12:02 AM on December 13, 2004
To answer your question, I feel that it is an improvement. (Yeah, it's probably pretty clear that I feel that way from my comments, but just in case and just to be clear. The obvious is frequently elusive.)
I don't feel that your post is a callout, but with the way things have been going lately there haven't been very many unloaded, objective questions posted to MeTa, so it's probably pretty easy to read too much into any similar post.
posted by loquacious at 12:02 AM on December 13, 2004
I think they're fine.
posted by languagehat at 6:58 AM on December 13, 2004
posted by languagehat at 6:58 AM on December 13, 2004
I feel that the anonymous questions are a good thing, but I wish there was a way for the original poster to post again in the thread to clarify the question, give more details, say thanks for helpful answers, whatever. Without that give and take, the ensuing answers seem a little less useful.
I do agree that I've seen a few anonymous questions that probably didn't need to be anonymous, but that doesn't really bother me too much.
posted by tdismukes at 9:43 AM on December 13, 2004
I do agree that I've seen a few anonymous questions that probably didn't need to be anonymous, but that doesn't really bother me too much.
posted by tdismukes at 9:43 AM on December 13, 2004
loquacious, I want to thank you for your argument so eloquently worded that it can almost be seen as a complement.
Also, the ability for users to ask pertinent anonymous questions can help them evolve and expand their comfort zone in ways you may have already forgotten, or perhaps never had the misfortune of having to learn.
I admit that I pretty much skipped over that stage. But consider this: most of the time, the fact that the question is anonymous says a lot more about the poster's problems than the actual question they're asking. Maybe the 'I've missed three credit card payments' poster wanted to be anonymous because, at some level, they knew they were being a bit ridiculous, and that in fact a lot of people were going to read that post and be fairly unsympathetic. Well, they're right, and I think that actually getting that reaction anyway is better for the poster than an answer to the question. When I read a lot of these anonymous posts, I want to say to the poster: silly rabbit, you are naive, you are repressed, you are self-centered in an obnoxiously childish way, and that, my friend, is what you ought to hear about, if you are going to stretch your fragile paradigm in front of your question like a translucent scrim.
Indeed mathowie has placed a caveat under the AskMe post box pleading against counterproductive comments, and, while I admit I've made a few, I think that in general my record of 'answers' on AskMe is not loaded down with snarkiness. But here we have a thread in MeTa, started by someone else, right here where it's more appropriate for me to express my disdain, and so that's what I'm doing.
posted by bingo at 7:27 PM on December 13, 2004
Also, the ability for users to ask pertinent anonymous questions can help them evolve and expand their comfort zone in ways you may have already forgotten, or perhaps never had the misfortune of having to learn.
I admit that I pretty much skipped over that stage. But consider this: most of the time, the fact that the question is anonymous says a lot more about the poster's problems than the actual question they're asking. Maybe the 'I've missed three credit card payments' poster wanted to be anonymous because, at some level, they knew they were being a bit ridiculous, and that in fact a lot of people were going to read that post and be fairly unsympathetic. Well, they're right, and I think that actually getting that reaction anyway is better for the poster than an answer to the question. When I read a lot of these anonymous posts, I want to say to the poster: silly rabbit, you are naive, you are repressed, you are self-centered in an obnoxiously childish way, and that, my friend, is what you ought to hear about, if you are going to stretch your fragile paradigm in front of your question like a translucent scrim.
Indeed mathowie has placed a caveat under the AskMe post box pleading against counterproductive comments, and, while I admit I've made a few, I think that in general my record of 'answers' on AskMe is not loaded down with snarkiness. But here we have a thread in MeTa, started by someone else, right here where it's more appropriate for me to express my disdain, and so that's what I'm doing.
posted by bingo at 7:27 PM on December 13, 2004
Maybe the 'I've missed three credit card payments' poster wanted to be anonymous because, at some level, they knew they were being a bit ridiculous, and that in fact a lot of people were going to read that post and be fairly unsympathetic. Well, they're right, and I think that actually getting that reaction anyway is better for the poster than an answer to the question.
It's better for a person in debt to be ridiculed than get advice on relieving their debt load?
posted by Bugbread at 6:52 AM on December 15, 2004
It's better for a person in debt to be ridiculed than get advice on relieving their debt load?
posted by Bugbread at 6:52 AM on December 15, 2004
When I say 'better,' I don't mean that the two are mutually exclusive.
Anyway, sounds like you didn't read the AskMe in question, because it wasn't a person in debt looking for advice on relieving their debt load.
posted by bingo at 4:59 PM on December 16, 2004
Anyway, sounds like you didn't read the AskMe in question, because it wasn't a person in debt looking for advice on relieving their debt load.
posted by bingo at 4:59 PM on December 16, 2004
« Older jewelboxing ad on the front page makes my browser... | Over-reaction to my not-so-stellar AskMe Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Dunno. Thought I'd throw it out and see if anybody had anything to say about it.
posted by Hildago at 12:04 PM on December 12, 2004