« Underhyped sites | Main | Chevy campaign »
April 04, 2006
Anonymity, pro and con
Anonymity, pro and con: John Grohol makes the case at A List Apart for requiring some reputation before allowing others to put content on your site... that anonymity can be destructive to a social group. That's generally been my experience too, across varied types of electronic discussion forums. But at Topix.net there's a contrary observation, of how volume and relevance of posts both went up once a registration system was ditched. Maybe both are true, that any highly-trafficked forum will eventually become an attractive target for anonymous parasitism, even though any particular site may not attract such problems over a short sample range. Then again, I know that I'll rarely comment at any weblog which requires authentication, or even if it requires owner approval before posting... I've seen a lot of time spent typing lost when I voiced an opinion contrary to that of the blog owner. Anyway, the first article has arguments for reputation-based posting, while the second is an argument against... interesting. [Links via Jeffrey Zeldman and Jeff Jarvis]
Posted by John Dowdell at April 4, 2006 01:04 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/7275
Comments
John: I think it's largely a matter of the resource to which folks are posting.
In a persistent community, where users are expected to return again-and-again, requiring identity is vital. But in en environment where quick hits of information trump relationships, the whole thing falls apart if you force registration.
"I've seen a lot of time spent typing lost when I voiced an opinion contrary to that of the blog owner."
I've railed about this elsewhere, but that's my problem with the popular notion of a blog. There's a lot of "it's all about me" powering too many bloggers. They view the blog as an isolated island of Self over which they can and must exert absolute control.
Posted by: Roger Benningfield at April 4, 2006 02:24 PM
Is anonymous parasitism worse than the other kind? (nudge nudge)
Posted by: George Girton at April 4, 2006 02:39 PM
Obviously good posters need to consider the reputation of the place they're posting as well. I don't think I've ever been censored because my opinion didn't match that of a blogger. That would be a good way to make me never post (or return) there again.
On my own blog, I've only had to block spam so far. Of course, what I define as spam isn't necessarily just those annoying ads. I don't doubt that if a visitor decided to harrass me with a dozen hateful comments that were completely off-topic, they'd be deleted without pause. Note the word *harrass* there. I might even consider leaving one of those comments, and respond with a civil retort. I'm not out to censor anyone, but if a discussion gets unhealthy, I will take action.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Josh at April 4, 2006 03:07 PM