Anonymous commenting for anonymous questions? June 27, 2005 11:00 AM Subscribe
hey matt...any way we can get anonymous commenting for anonymous questions on AskMe? there are sometimes that i wanna answer the question but.....
Naw, it's too ripe for abuse and I'd rather not risk doing it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:17 AM on June 27, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:17 AM on June 27, 2005
This really is something we could use and that has been mentioned time and time again, but we're not going to get it unless someone can come up with a way to safeguard it from abuse.
Perhaps in such cases you could email the person privately, using a hotmail address that is not linked to your account.
posted by orange swan at 11:41 AM on June 27, 2005
Perhaps in such cases you could email the person privately, using a hotmail address that is not linked to your account.
posted by orange swan at 11:41 AM on June 27, 2005
Of course my last suggestion will be of NO USE WHATSOEVER in the case that Shawn specifically mentioned, that of commenting anonymously in anonymous threads. Duh.
posted by orange swan at 11:43 AM on June 27, 2005
posted by orange swan at 11:43 AM on June 27, 2005
Matt, what about allowing the original anonymous poster to add clarifications, etc. in the threat anonymously?
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:49 AM on June 27, 2005
posted by By The Grace of God at 11:49 AM on June 27, 2005
Or, maybe, as an experiment only, make selected AxMe threads entirely anonymous. Everyone would be anonymous, poster and commenters alike. Maybe people would use it constructively? (Users seem better mannered on AxMe.) Just turn it off if it gets abused.
The totally anonymous threads would be approved on a case-by-case basis by Matt or j. Very few per week.
Seems better than the everyone-get-a-sock approach.
posted by Mid at 12:16 PM on June 27, 2005
The totally anonymous threads would be approved on a case-by-case basis by Matt or j. Very few per week.
Seems better than the everyone-get-a-sock approach.
posted by Mid at 12:16 PM on June 27, 2005
Perhaps some kind of arrangement where users get 1 or 2 answers on AskMe that appear anonymous [to the world, if not to mathowie/the computer] each week? I was going to say 'on anonymous threads only', but I can think of some non-anonymous threads where that function would be useful too. This would be with the stipulation that if any of a user's answers get flagged, that privilege is turned off on their account for some period of time. I have no idea how difficult that would be to implement, but it seems to me that some arrangement like that might allow for occasional anonymous answers, but not much abuse.
Certainly, though, some way for anonymous users to edit their questions or post clarifications in their threads [giving them some sort of temporary ID number, maybe?] would be very useful.
posted by ubersturm at 12:27 PM on June 27, 2005
Certainly, though, some way for anonymous users to edit their questions or post clarifications in their threads [giving them some sort of temporary ID number, maybe?] would be very useful.
posted by ubersturm at 12:27 PM on June 27, 2005
Matt, could you give a password to the userid anonymous to the anon. post requestor, and have it expire in 24 hours?
For commenting, sockpuppets are quite handy. It's only 5 bucks, which helps keep the place going. To say nothing of the entertainment value of naming the critter.
posted by theora55 at 12:58 PM on June 27, 2005
For commenting, sockpuppets are quite handy. It's only 5 bucks, which helps keep the place going. To say nothing of the entertainment value of naming the critter.
posted by theora55 at 12:58 PM on June 27, 2005
How about when the person posts to AskMe anonymously, they're given a thread passcode. To comment anonymously to an AskMe thread, you need the corresponding thread passcode.
This would keep out the rabble without accounts and it would keep one anonymous question-asker from posting as anonymous in another anonymous thread.
I don't reckon it would be too difficult, and the feature is much needed.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:13 PM on June 27, 2005
This would keep out the rabble without accounts and it would keep one anonymous question-asker from posting as anonymous in another anonymous thread.
I don't reckon it would be too difficult, and the feature is much needed.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:13 PM on June 27, 2005
Oh. Oh. Oh.
Maybe I should actually read the post.
(Anonymous threads seem like the best way to go, for that. Maybe, if it gets abused, require a moderator to approve anonymous comments. Or just keep an eye on anonymous threads: record, behind the scenes, who the actual user is so they can be banned if necessary.)
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:18 PM on June 27, 2005
Maybe I should actually read the post.
(Anonymous threads seem like the best way to go, for that. Maybe, if it gets abused, require a moderator to approve anonymous comments. Or just keep an eye on anonymous threads: record, behind the scenes, who the actual user is so they can be banned if necessary.)
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:18 PM on June 27, 2005
Why not spend the $5 and make yourself a sock-puppet account?
Well because your sock puppet would then be known as a cat killing, employer's money stealing, ass-hair clipping freak which would put you in the Fark demographic.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:26 PM on June 27, 2005
Well because your sock puppet would then be known as a cat killing, employer's money stealing, ass-hair clipping freak which would put you in the Fark demographic.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:26 PM on June 27, 2005
Perhaps in such cases you could email the person privately
How do you email user "anonymous?"
I agree that this would be cool. I think the anonymous feature is only 25% effective as-is. Of course, it is open to lots of abuse. Aren't current anti-abuse measures enough to combat that, though?
After all, Matt can see who's posting anonymously. Why not just timeout anyone who posts deletable shite anonymously?
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on June 27, 2005
How do you email user "anonymous?"
I agree that this would be cool. I think the anonymous feature is only 25% effective as-is. Of course, it is open to lots of abuse. Aren't current anti-abuse measures enough to combat that, though?
After all, Matt can see who's posting anonymously. Why not just timeout anyone who posts deletable shite anonymously?
posted by scarabic at 2:40 PM on June 27, 2005
Right.
Also, not providing an anonymous feature encourages sock puppetry, which leads to different (I think more insidious) abuses. The anonymous abuse factor has to be weighed against the sock abuse factor.
posted by Mid at 2:53 PM on June 27, 2005
Also, not providing an anonymous feature encourages sock puppetry, which leads to different (I think more insidious) abuses. The anonymous abuse factor has to be weighed against the sock abuse factor.
posted by Mid at 2:53 PM on June 27, 2005
Original anonymous poster can either tick to allow or disallow anonymous replies in their thread. Maybe even allow the original author to "moderate" the thread - vetting any anonymous reply. Or make anonymous replies only viewable to the original author and not published to the thread.
I think there are two issues here - anonymous trolling and spamming of the thread which is easy to stop, and anonymous harassment of the thread starter, which is more difficult.
I think something like this could be workable - maybe when combined with a limit of something like three anonymous replies per week, per user.
posted by fire&wings at 3:19 PM on June 27, 2005
I think there are two issues here - anonymous trolling and spamming of the thread which is easy to stop, and anonymous harassment of the thread starter, which is more difficult.
I think something like this could be workable - maybe when combined with a limit of something like three anonymous replies per week, per user.
posted by fire&wings at 3:19 PM on June 27, 2005
I don't understand how one could abuse the system: the only people who can comment are people who are already logged in, right? So why can't there be a simple check when a person's posting... if original poster=anonymous, anonymous posting checkbox=true.
This could be one of those things that seems a lot easier until you actually start coding it, of course.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:56 PM on June 27, 2005
This could be one of those things that seems a lot easier until you actually start coding it, of course.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:56 PM on June 27, 2005
Assuming, of course, only logged in members can comment anonymously, I don't think it will encourage that much abuse. All that needs to happen is that matt has the ability to "see" who the poster really was if they use the feature to post goatse etc.
All this involves trust - do we trust matt to have the ability to see who posters really are, if he needs to? I'm assuming that, as it stands, anonymous questioners could be identified if need be through looking at log files.
-Person at IP address 203.38.20.128 posted an anonymous question at 9:33 pm.
-Oh look, 15 minutes earlier, IP address 203.38.20.128 posted a comment as Jimbob...
posted by Jimbob at 6:42 PM on June 27, 2005
All this involves trust - do we trust matt to have the ability to see who posters really are, if he needs to? I'm assuming that, as it stands, anonymous questioners could be identified if need be through looking at log files.
-Person at IP address 203.38.20.128 posted an anonymous question at 9:33 pm.
-Oh look, 15 minutes earlier, IP address 203.38.20.128 posted a comment as Jimbob...
posted by Jimbob at 6:42 PM on June 27, 2005
As I understand it, mathowie already knows who the poster of the anonymous question is, so how much more harm could come from him knowing the anonymous answerer?
I don't seem much scope for abuse here, but anonymous answers bypass what I see as the main strength of AskMe - the reason that the answers are valuable is because you have some knowledge of the person giving the answer. If it is just some anonymous entity telling you to leave your wife and move in with your gay lover, you might as well ask the cat.
posted by dg at 6:47 PM on June 27, 2005
I don't seem much scope for abuse here, but anonymous answers bypass what I see as the main strength of AskMe - the reason that the answers are valuable is because you have some knowledge of the person giving the answer. If it is just some anonymous entity telling you to leave your wife and move in with your gay lover, you might as well ask the cat.
posted by dg at 6:47 PM on June 27, 2005
How about when the person posts to AskMe anonymously, they're given a thread passcode. To comment anonymously to an AskMe thread, you need the corresponding thread passcode.
This would keep out the rabble without accounts and it would keep one anonymous question-asker from posting as anonymous in another anonymous thread.
I really like this idea though. That way, anon can also mark the best answers as well as address follow-up questions, maybe even update the thread later on as to whether the advice taken did work.
As for anonymously answering questions, I think it runs against the spirit of accountability that holds up MetaFilter, where you have to be careful about what you say because you can't edit your posts and because everyone else can see your commenting history. Consistent identity and constructive community contribution are part and parcel of credibility around here, so even with strong qualifiers ("I am an expert in this field..."), an anonymous commenter (or an obvious sock puppet) would not get too much weight. How would anyone really know, anyway? If you're so embarrassed that you can't bring yourself to stand behind your answer to a question, then maybe you're better off not answering.
posted by Lush at 7:50 PM on June 27, 2005
This would keep out the rabble without accounts and it would keep one anonymous question-asker from posting as anonymous in another anonymous thread.
I really like this idea though. That way, anon can also mark the best answers as well as address follow-up questions, maybe even update the thread later on as to whether the advice taken did work.
As for anonymously answering questions, I think it runs against the spirit of accountability that holds up MetaFilter, where you have to be careful about what you say because you can't edit your posts and because everyone else can see your commenting history. Consistent identity and constructive community contribution are part and parcel of credibility around here, so even with strong qualifiers ("I am an expert in this field..."), an anonymous commenter (or an obvious sock puppet) would not get too much weight. How would anyone really know, anyway? If you're so embarrassed that you can't bring yourself to stand behind your answer to a question, then maybe you're better off not answering.
posted by Lush at 7:50 PM on June 27, 2005
Unless its about something really embarrassing that you don't want people to know you have experience with. I.e., STDs, drug problems, getting fired, impotence, etc. etc.
posted by Mid at 7:53 PM on June 27, 2005
posted by Mid at 7:53 PM on June 27, 2005
As a newly-unemployed impotent virgin with genital warts, I would greatly welcome such a facility. Oh, and I tongue-kissed my own brother.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:46 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:46 AM on June 28, 2005
No, I think Matt's right about this. It's a bad idea.
posted by cribcage at 10:24 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by cribcage at 10:24 AM on June 28, 2005
Anonymous posting would be bad both for accountability reasons and for what lush and dq said. Sock puppets should not been seen as a solution though, as some of us are unwilling or unable to do business with the steaming pile of evil that is paypal.
posted by Mitheral at 11:06 AM on June 28, 2005
posted by Mitheral at 11:06 AM on June 28, 2005
Assuming, of course, only logged in members can comment anonymously, I don't think it will encourage that much abuse.
I'd bet it would increase subtle forms of abuse... there are already comments that verge on the slightly mean / judgmental side, just because we talk about a lot of personal issues, and people ask for direct opinions. I'd guess that with the option to post anonymously, there'd be a reduction in effort to be fair or even-handed in responding. It would simply be easier to make blanket statements or put someone down a bit if the poster knew it wouldn't reflect back... (and where the line ought to be drawn is not absolute, so it'd make for more "why did that anonymous comment get deleted" questions)
posted by mdn at 2:48 PM on June 28, 2005
I'd bet it would increase subtle forms of abuse... there are already comments that verge on the slightly mean / judgmental side, just because we talk about a lot of personal issues, and people ask for direct opinions. I'd guess that with the option to post anonymously, there'd be a reduction in effort to be fair or even-handed in responding. It would simply be easier to make blanket statements or put someone down a bit if the poster knew it wouldn't reflect back... (and where the line ought to be drawn is not absolute, so it'd make for more "why did that anonymous comment get deleted" questions)
posted by mdn at 2:48 PM on June 28, 2005
I'd guess that with the option to post anonymously, there'd be a reduction in effort to be fair or even-handed in responding.
Just because a post says "anonymous" doesn't mean Matt can't track who the owner is (again, providing you require login for anon posting). Posters can still be held accountable with the general user base's ability to flag bad posts.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:31 PM on June 28, 2005
Just because a post says "anonymous" doesn't mean Matt can't track who the owner is (again, providing you require login for anon posting). Posters can still be held accountable with the general user base's ability to flag bad posts.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:31 PM on June 28, 2005
sure, but people are rude and unfair here & there even when their name's attached. I'm just saying that anon posting would encourage rather than discourage that - perhaps not to such a degree that it should be ruled out, but I still think it's a legit concern.
Basically, my point is that it's not black & white: anon posting wouldn't turn people evil, but it'd allow them to slide a little more easily to the negative end of the spectrum.
posted by mdn at 6:47 PM on June 28, 2005
Basically, my point is that it's not black & white: anon posting wouldn't turn people evil, but it'd allow them to slide a little more easily to the negative end of the spectrum.
posted by mdn at 6:47 PM on June 28, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by handful of rain at 11:05 AM on June 27, 2005