What about requiring a valid e-mail to post?

August 30, 2002 6:23 AM

How about requiring everyone who posts to have a valid e-mail accessable to other members, but only through a form mail, to hide the address for those who don't want it really public, and to protect addresses from farmers?
posted by rich to Feature Requests at 6:23 AM (10 comments total)

See, because people really need to think about sending e-mail comments to people instead of starting these raging metatalk threads and clutering up metafilter threads.

And to make it easier, maybe a link on front page posts, next to the comment link, 'Send private comment to poster'.
posted by rich at 6:25 AM on August 30, 2002

Rich...check your e-mail. :)
posted by oh posey at 6:56 AM on August 30, 2002

to protect addresses from farmers?

Agricultural spam is just the worst.
posted by rory at 7:10 AM on August 30, 2002

metachat goodness
posted by dangerman at 7:10 AM on August 30, 2002

> ... to protect addresses from farmers

Hey! Us farmers would like to fire off emails, too.

(But, yeah. I'd take this over a pony. I've oft complained about anonymous members who post-and-run.)
posted by ewagoner at 7:13 AM on August 30, 2002

I prefer to experience MetaFilter on MetaFilter and not in my swelling inbox. But, if you find you just can't quell the burning urge to message me, go ahead and send it to [e-mail].

If I don't get back to you right away, I'm sorry. I'm just really bad about that kind of thing.
posted by willnot at 7:18 AM on August 30, 2002

I've oft complained about anonymous members who post-and-run

Understandable, because it's annoying, but is e-mailing them really going to be a big payoff? Assuming (1) that we require everybody to have a valid, working e-mail address and (2) they actually check it, what are the chances that e-mailing some high-tailin'-it postmonkey will lead to anything other than your mail being ignored or a private flamewar? Wouldn't it just be easier to spend some time in the land of USENET?

I know this is a rather one-sided view of the situation, but I really do believe it's the side that would cover the vast majority of cases.


posted by cortex at 7:53 AM on August 30, 2002

I prefer to experience MetaFilter on MetaFilter and not in my swelling inbox.

Maybe you should see a doctor about that, ma'am.
posted by ColdChef at 8:08 AM on August 30, 2002

cortex.. at least the flamewar will be private instead of hashed out on Metafilter or Metatalk.

People seem to have this need to 'educate' others in public here, and a lot of it could just be helpful hints in an e-mail. Most of the complaints center around 'dumb newbie, do it *this* way.' Then, the thread gets destroyed, the post goes to metatalk, and we continue to hash around it all over the site.

If the e-mail link is provided, then there will be no need for people to post 'why don't you post front page posts like *this*' within the comments thread, removing the clutter, and giving a auto-policing solution for people who insist on addressing the way something was posted as opposed to the actual content provided.
posted by rich at 12:44 PM on August 30, 2002

Doesn't that detract from MetaTalk as a repository of community standards?
posted by timeistight at 12:57 PM on August 30, 2002