View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Composr | cns_forum | public | 2015-07-23 11:36 | 2015-11-24 09:19 |
| Reporter | Chris Graham | Assigned To | Chris Graham | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | ||
| Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
| Summary | 2000: Force guests to give name | ||||
| Description | Currently it defaults to Guest. Force Guests to give their name by not defaulting the input field. This should be a configurable option. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Attach Tags | |||||
| Time estimation (hours) | 0.5 | ||||
| Sponsorship open | |||||
|
|
Thanks for the sponsorship :). |
|
|
How does this work in an Anonymous post forum? Is the option for Guest names per forum too? Pretty sure you've considered this, just seems both options are at odds with other on the surface. Thanks OneRingRules :) |
|
|
I considered it, but there's nothing special done for it - Anonymous means it will post as "Guest". To post as a true guest with choice of guest name, I would advise using something like an incognito window. It'd be a little hard to make anonymous work with also a choice of anonymous name, because at the point of the posting form being open it doesn't have the name field (because you're logged in), so we'd need to write some JS to hide/unhide that field based on anonymous being ticked - a bit over the top IMO. |
|
|
I posted on another ticket about my concerns about calling something Anonymous if it is more akin to being Pseudonymous. I think the ticket I replied on was about finding out who Anonymous posts belonged to for moderation purposes. Not really a big deal to me personally, but if it's not truly anonymous I think it should be made clearer given the increasing concerns surrounding privacy. Isn't Pseudonymous posts a more accurate and truthful description given the reality of the implementation? Then you could perhaps add the advice to use an Incognito window on top of that. Anonymous gives the wrong assumption to the user in my opinion, plus there's the inescapable connotation to that well known hacker group who have hijacked the term. Users will be under the impression that they are indeed legion, and then we will have no option but to expect them. Also, we need to remember that they probably will not forget, largely due to the remember me cookie we might have stored in their base (all of which are belong to us). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano |
|
|
Couldn't both things exist as Pseudonymous posts is what I'm getting at? Given that neither guests or members are truly anonymous. I would imagine that a guest is far more anonymous than a member (especially one with a completed profile) as far as Composr is concerned, yet Members are being offered a questionable Anonymity which still leaves them more identifiable than a Guest. Perhaps a pseudonym could be given for both cases, or either could revert to default terms/names (Unknown User, Masked Member). Clarity is key in my mind and the guise of Anonymity could appear to be nefarious which clearly isn't the intent. <anonymous>It's not like we're routing the post via Tor in order to stealthily locate an illegal stockpile of Pot Noodles and prescription drugs to aid our uncertain survival of the the nuclear zombie alien apocalypse of our collectively infiltrated mindsets which is made near impossible to achieve due to tin foil hats not being actual Faraday cages and the outrageous fact that only certain people wear them. That's without bringing up the fact that it doesn't match my scarf and gloves.</anonymous> |
|
|
Anonymous in the forums is a user who does not have an account. That is a GUEST. My understanding of this thread and job is that a GUEST post will not be allowed in some forums and allowed in other forums. This access control will be at forum level and no doubt will display somewhere in the forum that GUEST accounts cannot post. This is different from a GUEST who has now joined and become a member with a user name that is a pseudonym. All new users on our site are assigned into a probationary group. This has reduced spammers and posters with adverts and sex ads to zero and works well. You need to get back to basic language and to most citizens in everyday language a GUEST is an anonymous site user because they do not have a named account where points etc are collated and post history is available. The terms anonymous and GUEST as far as site users in the forums go has nothing to do with cookies and IP addressing as nothing is ever anonymous on the net if you are a security agency with unlimited money time and resources. Basic forum users are either named users with an account or a GUEST (Not a named user). That is a lot more straightforward than worrying about Cookies and IP addressing and a zombie apocalypse which is already near to happening in the EU now out of Syria etc.. |
|
|
It posts with the guest user ID (ID=1). By "true guest", I meant through the exact user experience process a guest would have (i.e. with a field to enter their name), I wasn't talking about data storage. Ironically you have it backwards with the pseudoanonymous point. The true Guest (a non-logged-in user) has potentially more information revealed as they can enter their name when they make their post. The anonymous logged in member posts always as the name "Guest" (with ID=1). |
|
|
(Oh and just to be clear - I realise my first reply was not clear, it was late, and is now late also :D) |
|
|
Okay, you've both helped me make more sense of it. It was late when I wrote my opinion and aside from the normality of what I see as being a misleading term I am going to accept that I am fastidious :) |
