mean, rude, simple-minded posters are ruining this board

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
quick technology question... forgive my ignorance...
what if more than 1 user uses the same IP address??? none of them will be able to post?

Normally in that case, not all of the posts -- or even the majority -- will be rude. Therefore, I won't choose to block it. If all the posters are rude, then they all deserve to be blocked.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure this is an age-old question, and I know it wouldn't be a silver bullet, but I'm curious as to why you choose not to require log-ins? I'm on a number of message boards, and most require log-ins (and bonus, most have some sort of "ignore" feature).

Yes, it's an age old question. The short answer is that most users don't want to use logins. There is nothing stopping users from using logins now, yet few do. I always suggest that those in favor of login lead by example.

[Anonymous]

oh ok.. makes sense.. thanks

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure this is an age-old question, and I know it wouldn't be a silver bullet, but I'm curious as to why you choose not to require log-ins? I'm on a number of message boards, and most require log-ins (and bonus, most have some sort of "ignore" feature).

Yes, it's an age old question. The short answer is that most users don't want to use logins. There is nothing stopping users from using logins now, yet few do. I always suggest that those in favor of login lead by example.

I don't think most users of any website typically support a change to the website. (See: Facebook, Slate, Salon, etc.) However, make the change and ask them again in six months to a year, and most will hardly remember a time before.

[Anonymous]

Good point 10:32! Next time I want to post, I will figure out how to set up a user name/login...

[Anonymous]

IMO, the rude and nasty posts that cause the most problems are not the type that Jeff would block. Sure, if someone is doing nothing but offering one-liner flames that add nothing to the discussion, that's a good reason to block the IP. The hard cases though are where people are nasty and judgmental, but where the judgmental nastiness is not so completely out-of-line, and where those people may offer substantive comments that are peppered with nastiness. A perfect example would be the person who may make many substantive comments about child-care issues, but always includes a dig at how working moms would have fewer problems if they stayed at home. Banning someone like that does not really make sense, but if she had a login (e.g., "HomeMom15"), I'd at least grow to recognize that's her own pet peeve, and I'd be less likely to be annoyed or to respond.

Maybe Jeff's suggestion is the right one. If enough people start using logins, then maybe the anonymous posters will become a minority, and we'll all just start ignoring the anonymous posts.

Jeff, is the impediment to required logins really just that you think most people don't want them? I always thought it had to do more with your concern that having required logins would create too much administrative hassle for you. If the only issue is really what the majority wants, would it make sense to post a poll on the issue?

[Anonymous]

With logins, there's potentially the option of having an "ignore" feature. SO, SO helpful. So if you know, for example, that HomeMom15 is just a big bucket of snark and not much else, *click*, and you never have to see her posts again.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, is the impediment to required logins really just that you think most people don't want them? I always thought it had to do more with your concern that having required logins would create too much administrative hassle for you. If the only issue is really what the majority wants, would it make sense to post a poll on the issue?

We have had countless threads on this topic. Whenever opinions have been solicited, those opposing logins always outweigh those favoring them. We also set up a forum that required a login to post, but it was barely used.

My personal objection is the administrative workload. Even without requiring logins, I get multiple emails per day saying "can you send me my username and password". The contact form says in red letters that we will not respond to such messages. Therefore, I ignore them. But, I hate to think of the number of messages to which I would have to respond if we required logins.

The most common objection voiced by users is that the personal nature of messages on this board would make establishing the identity of a user fairly easy once a history of messages could be established. For instance, if "newmomDC" posts one message saying her son attends Lafayette Elementary School, another which mentions that her husband is a partner in a law firm, a third that describes how much she loves her Volvo S80, and a fourth describing her experiences with her brown lab retriever at the local dog park, it starts to get fairly easy for someone to figure out who she is. Then, when she posts about unusual vaginal discharges, she suddenly finds herself getting strange looks at pickup time at Lafayette.

Also, to address a point made by a different previous poster, our software does not have an ignore function.

[Anonymous]

And there's also the problem of ganging up on the log-in user. You see people start to post things like NewMom09 is so annoying and then, everyone piles on. It's just not worth it to identify yourself, even with a semi-anonymous moniker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And there's also the problem of ganging up on the log-in user. You see people start to post things like NewMom09 is so annoying and then, everyone piles on. It's just not worth it to identify yourself, even with a semi-anonymous moniker.

Exactly! Remember all the posters who said mean things about Zumbamama in the confessions post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And there's also the problem of ganging up on the log-in user. You see people start to post things like NewMom09 is so annoying and then, everyone piles on. It's just not worth it to identify yourself, even with a semi-anonymous moniker.

Exactly! Remember all the posters who said mean things about Zumbamama in the confessions post?

True, true, but anyone who logs on can be a lightning rod because they are so few.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:
The most common objection voiced by users is that the personal nature of messages on this board would make establishing the identity of a user fairly easy once a history of messages could be established. For instance, if "newmomDC" posts one message saying her son attends Lafayette Elementary School, another which mentions that her husband is a partner in a law firm, a third that describes how much she loves her Volvo S80, and a fourth describing her experiences with her brown lab retriever at the local dog park, it starts to get fairly easy for someone to figure out who she is. Then, when she posts about unusual vaginal discharges, she suddenly finds herself getting strange looks at pickup time at Lafayette.

Okay, this made me laugh out loud. Hadn't thought about it, but yes, I can see this happening...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
The most common objection voiced by users is that the personal nature of messages on this board would make establishing the identity of a user fairly easy once a history of messages could be established. For instance, if "newmomDC" posts one message saying her son attends Lafayette Elementary School, another which mentions that her husband is a partner in a law firm, a third that describes how much she loves her Volvo S80, and a fourth describing her experiences with her brown lab retriever at the local dog park, it starts to get fairly easy for someone to figure out who she is. Then, when she posts about unusual vaginal discharges, she suddenly finds herself getting strange looks at pickup time at Lafayette.

Okay, this made me laugh out loud. Hadn't thought about it, but yes, I can see this happening...

didn't you read on the paper the family that had the house mugged after posting up to date info on twitter? they broke into their home because they knew the family was out of town through twitter.

i can't believe you people are so naive?!?!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

didn't you read on the paper the family that had the house mugged after posting up to date info on twitter? they broke into their home because they knew the family was out of town through twitter.

i can't believe you people are so naive?!?!?!?


I've heard of homes burglarized while the family is at a funeral after a notice in the obituary section gave out too many details. And Paula Abdul's home was broken into while she was out at a music awards event where she was either a presenter or nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
The most common objection voiced by users is that the personal nature of messages on this board would make establishing the identity of a user fairly easy once a history of messages could be established. For instance, if "newmomDC" posts one message saying her son attends Lafayette Elementary School, another which mentions that her husband is a partner in a law firm, a third that describes how much she loves her Volvo S80, and a fourth describing her experiences with her brown lab retriever at the local dog park, it starts to get fairly easy for someone to figure out who she is. Then, when she posts about unusual vaginal discharges, she suddenly finds herself getting strange looks at pickup time at Lafayette.

Okay, this made me laugh out loud. Hadn't thought about it, but yes, I can see this happening...

didn't you read on the paper the family that had the house mugged after posting up to date info on twitter? they broke into their home because they knew the family was out of town through twitter.

i can't believe you people are so naive?!?!?!?

Did you happen to notice the subject line of the thread?