Firefox Marketing Project, Week 2
Thursday July 15th, 2004
Blake Ross writes: "Many thanks to everyone who participated in our first marketing project. As I write this, 1369 people have given Firefox a 96% approval rating, and 1220 people have rated it straight fives across the board. Firefox is now on the most popular list, above other heavyweights like MSN Messenger, AIM, and Winamp. This was an amazing launch to our 'ten weeks, ten ideas, ten million downloads' community marketing campaign.
"For our second initiative, we're stepping it up a bit and asking you to help us manage the enormous volume of press coverage that our products enjoy daily. We're seeking to mobilize a team of determined individuals that can manage itself in identifying three types of press coverage — factually inaccurate stories, stories that don't mention Firefox or Thunderbird but should, and stories that are factually correct and balanced — and respond to them accordingly. A new mozilla.org mailing list will be used to coordinate daily activity; the team will be determined, focused, easily mobilized and not prone to the sort of long and aimless discussions that plague other lists. The Foundation's in-house press relations team will continue to handle the 'tier 1', most prominent stories, but for everything else we need your help. More information about the initiative and how you can help is available at my blog."
#1 good idea, but keep it reasonable
Thursday July 15th, 2004 6:02 PM
To reiterate what I said on Blake's blog:
The problem with this effort is that you seem to be focusing more on giving Firefox a *good* rating, rather than an *accurate* one.
For example, last week's download.com effort was fine, if you were just meaning to have everyone give reviews of their experiences with Fx. The problem with it was with those horribly close-minded people who went and killed Opera's ratings/reviews. It seems to me that this effort would be a little to close to that.
I'll be signing up, but as much to make sure that it's ethical and reasonable as it is promoting Fx (which I love, but things can go too far).
#2 Re: good idea, but keep it reasonable
Thursday July 15th, 2004 6:47 PM
When things go wrong, people have no problem voicing their opinion. That is not an accurate representation of a product. I believe the Firefix marketing campaign is simply asking people to make their voices heard, specifically those who love the product. (Those who do not like the product require no prodding to have their voices heard.) Maybe it should be called an "anti-apathy" campaign.
#3 Re: Re: good idea, but keep it reasonable
Thursday July 15th, 2004 8:46 PM
I agree totally; but Blake's blog post (about week 2) sure seems to imply that he's looking for perfect scores (which he got no shortage of).
#4 Quit your whiny bitching
Thursday July 15th, 2004 9:50 PM
Quit your whining. We _are_ a grassroots movement and there's nothing wrong with this project utilizing all of it's resources the best way it can. No one at Mozilla suggested anyone do anything having anything to do with Opera and both Blake and I asked people to give their honest reviews at download.com. I have no doubt that Firefox totally rocks and my honest review is 5 stars. I suspect that's a common attitude among Firefox users so I didn't feel any need to tell people to rate things a 5.
I honestly don't care what you hope to accomplish with your bitching but it's a waste of pretty much everyone's time so cut it out or take it somewhere else. You're offering nothing of value to the Mozilla community and your anonymous posting is a pretty good tip off that you're not looking for light as much as heat. Well, I, for one, ain't interested in your trolling and I've got no problems calling you on it. This community has better things to do than get dragged down by whiners.
Boo-hoo! Blake was hoping people would rate Firefox high. Boo-hoo. How dare Firefox developers expect Firefox users to like their software! Waaaaahhh.
Seriously, grow up.
Asa, I tend to agree with you, but here's a hint for the future:
When you characterize another user's post as "whiny bitching," ore use the term Boo-hoo, you have ceased to participate in discussion and have launched into flame war. You have therefore lost the rational argument by default. Please refrain from such childish antics. You honestly sound like you're in the fifth grade.
hm, this was childish indeed!
yes firefox is great, but why flame other people who think it is great?
this is by far not the way to address anybody in the great firefox community. especially by an official.
thumbs down, asa.
I liked Asa's little anti-whining effort. It was funny and made a point. True, giving into a flamer brings you down to their level, but sometimes it can be appropriate if it fits in right and makes others laugh a little.
Me too. I think he definitely had a point, and the previous posts were whinging without reason.
And I agree too. I think Asa's post was appropriate and even amusing.
Yes, it was about time the Mozilla guys took it to the streets!
Feels like old times.
#57 Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
by bonejob <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Wednesday July 28th, 2004 3:13 PM
"True, giving into a flamer brings you down to their level, but sometimes it can be appropriate if it fits in right and makes others laugh a little."
I agree with Asa's message, but as for his delivery... I'm not laughing.
#8 Race to Construct. Not War to Demolite.
by danielwang <email@example.com>
Friday July 16th, 2004 3:57 AM
> We _are_ a grassroots movement and there's nothing wrong with this project utilizing all of it's resources the best way it can
While I agree with this, I do not agree with using this line of defence for everything that happens in the community. While it is true that Asa and Blake explicitly ask people to give honest reviews both in the initial announcements and their respective blogs, it is also true that MozillaZine (where most fans go for information) has not publicly denounced unfair reviews. I do not know if MozillaZine is the proper bulletin board for such thing. However, the project did cause some controversey and we did need a open channel where we could calm people down.
I do not think anyone here argue against the intention of the project. We know Asa and Blake meant well. However, the project had many faults. The poll system on download.com was too open and thus open to spamming. We did not have a place where participants can talk about the campaign. We did not have a place where those who started the campaign can respond to criticism and events that happened. The initial announcement did not contain strong enough a message against fraudent reviews.
There are things we can improve. I urge Asa and Blake to more openly accept criticism and suggestion to improvements. I also urge everybody who disagrees with the first campaign to calm down. What we need is constructive discussion on what can go wrong with this campaign and how to prevent that. There is no point starting a war here over what happened in week 1.
Week two should be better. We are not targeting any particular press, and we are not suggesting any particular action. Instead, we open a mailing list and ask people to suggest what news articles to respond to (or not to respond to) and what kind of actions to take. Discovering and responding to news articles take some effort, and this should ensure that most participants will be more thoughtful and not take shortcuts. The marketing aims here are accuracy and fairness. If a reporter recommands another browser or criticizes Firefox or Mozilla, but does so with facts and logics, I'm sure most participants will let the reporter go and some would even praise the reporter.
The action that is emphasized here (or at least I think should be emphasized) is fact finding, not the actual response. As I wrote in a message to Raiph (who was working on a similar but independent project):
. Lots of news out there are misleading and contain wrong or incomplete information. . We need a place where people can get the correct information before sending out . comments. Having such info ready, furthermore, would has more substance than . notes on NPOV and propaganda. An informed audience will be able to send out NPOV . comments without being told to.
Responding to press is nothing new. We have been talking about this ever since the marketing-public mailing list opened. Most participants will be serious people. There is just no comparison between the first campaign and the second.
#18 Re: Race to Construct. Not War to Demolite.
Friday July 16th, 2004 5:23 PM
I disagree with your characterization of that as spamming. Download.com is interested in getting as many reviews as possible (reading reviews holds eyeballs on their ads and provides a service to their users). Mozilla is interested in its users telling other people about its software and has for years and will continue to for years, count on it's community of users to use word of mouth, word of blog, word of review sites, word on call-in radio programs, letters to the editors, stealth installs, whatever it takes to get the word out about its products.
I also disagree with your suggesting that it's anyone's job to speak out against a few bad acts. We clearly explained our effort and nowhere in that said anything about trashing anyone else. The little Opera thing doesn't bother me a bit. A small handfull of their zealots gave bad reviews to Firefox and a small handful of Firefox zealots gave some bad reviews to Opera. So the f*$k what? The world didn't end. The only people that noticed or cared (I certainly wasn't among those that cared) were a few zealots and fanboys on both sides. Who cares?
I'm wide open to criticism. That doesn't mean I'm going to act on it. Some of the criticism I read and dismiss as not worth my time is completely valid. Some is not. I'll use the experience I've got doing what I do to make that decision. This is not a democracy and never has been. It's a meritocracy and I've earned my wings on these projects. Don't count on me to give equal time or even equal consideration to everyone. Go do some good work for the project and I'll probably spend more time listening to you (the general "you", not you specifically.)
And in case I haven't made myself clear, I've got zero regrets about the download.com review campaign. I think it was 100% legitimate use of grassroots support to proselytize on behalf of our product. I don't think that anything of significance "went wrong" or even had much liklihood of "going wrong". Our community stepped up and made a difference. If you don't want to participate with the hundreds of others, don't. If you want to criticize, do. Don't expect me to spend any significant time wading through a bunch of whining and bitching from people whose contributions to the project aren't visible to me (again, this is not directed at you, the more general audience.)\
#23 Re: Re: Race to Construct. Not War to Demolite.
Friday July 16th, 2004 6:57 PM
> I disagree with your characterization of that as spamming.
Blake said they spoke to cnet before deciding what to do. Nothing much could go wrong once that was done, as long as the request made of the fans was reasonable. The request was reasonable. I believe the result was a smart quick win in terms of what both download.com and the Firefox team wanted out of it. Congrats are in order.
But the Opera stuff did happen, and wasn't nice. Is there anything simple that MF can do in their guidance for future projects that would retain the positive impacts and reduce bad stuff like the Opera nastiness? I think so. I think the overall "whatever it takes" attitude needs to be balanced by something that nudges fans away from unethical behavior (and "we are not telling you how to vote" doesn't provide that balance).
The reason I post this is not really about download.com, which is in the past. My concern is the much broader and longer For The Record campaign announced today, and the complementary project I have just finished setting up called FANS. In both cases we do NOT want fans to do "whatever it takes". We want fans to behave ethically. Hopefully, simply talking about this issue, as I am doing in this post, as occurs on the FANS pages, and as no doubt will occur in the For The Record guidelines, is all it will take to ensure that a better balance will naturally be struck in the future.
For The Record, here's the FANS URL: <http://kb.mozillazine.org/index.phtml?title=FANS>
#26 Re: Re: Re: Race to Construct. Not War to Demolite
Saturday July 17th, 2004 12:19 AM
I believe people should use common sense. There's no way mozilla.org would endorse spamming another product's listing with negative comments.
#28 Re: Re: Re: Re: Race to Construct. Not War to Demo
Saturday July 17th, 2004 10:28 AM
People _should_ use common sense. However, assuming that everyone will use common sense would be extremely naive.
If <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes things like "a small handful of Firefox zealots gave some bad reviews to Opera. So the f*$k what?", then it's not a huge stretch to read into that that mozilla.org doesn't care about people spamming another product's listing with negative comments.
You're opening yourselves up for misunderstanding from people that don't use common sense, people that don't understand the context well enough to use common sense, and people that want to misrepresent what you're saying for whatever reason.
#30 Re: Re: Race to Construct. Not War to Demolite.
Saturday July 17th, 2004 11:04 AM
The mere fact that you periodically say such things is helpful.
(Though I note that you didn't say you condemn it.)
On the one hand, you are, imo, right to to resist getting into unnecessary complications in general, and laying down ethical guidelines in particular. Leave that to individual fans and evolution.
But on the other, you have to consider what happens if you don't at least periodically explicitly state your own ethical limits, especially in the context of people getting involved with a particular activity. Consider the Bush administration and "interrogation techniques". Bush is saying that there's no way the administration would endorse torture. But they did create a consciously unqualified "whatever it takes" environment, and that (I believe) contributed to people's behavior. Asa just said "whatever it takes to get the word out". I know where he's coming from, and support use of strong language to wake people up. But, if you don't lob in the occasional personal "whoa", things can so much more easily get out of hand.
I think you ought to leave it to fans' individual ethics, but give them some occasional leadership hints. Ones that go a bit further than "there's no way we would endorse torture" stated after the event.
#45 Re: Re: Re: Re: Race to Construct. Not War to Demo
Sunday July 18th, 2004 7:29 AM
some people will say whatever nonsense they can come up with: that firefox has spyware, worked with Bin laden to establish a pipeline in Afghanistan, etc. It's best to avoid these kiddies and look at the big picture.
If he was posting anonymously for that reason, he probably wouldn't have made an identical post in blake's blog with his name and email address attached, and then referred to it in this post.
Coming out and flaming people, trolls or otherwise, just leads to more trolling, flaming, and whining. I'm not sure I'd say this was trolling anyway - it's quite well-reasoned whining, although it's about the previous effort, so it's a bit late.
It's happened more than once -- both here, on Blake's blog, and certainly elsewhere -- that anyone with any reasonable objection to the Download.com campaign is accused of "bitching" and "trolling". I'm certainly the last person to have any blanket objections to getting the Firefox name out there, but while I agree with this marketing gesture in spirit, it just seemed like an extremely counter-productive method.
The point I tried to make with _my_ objection was, in a nutshell, this: like many other people who are occasionally forced to find information about software at Download.com, I typically see an unusually high number of votes or an atypically high score as suspect. Someone pointed out that such an effort would serve to balance out the usual inequities at the site, but it's only served to encourage them further, as seen by the unpleasant side-effect of those who chose to slight competing products in the process (regardless of what was asked of them, it was bound to happen). It's fairly common knowledge that the imbalance in Download.com's system is generally perpetuated by representatives of corporate entities attempting to artificially skew the rankings. Even though these efforts for Firebird are, on the surface, an innocent attempt at honest grassroots evangelism, it could quite possibly give the same perceived effect.
I'd just like to say that, well, ending a post named "Quit your whiny bitching" with "Seriously, grow up" is somewhat hypocrital.
Other than that, I have nothing to say about your post. I'm disappointed, frankly.
To everyone else:
I wasn't meaning to flame, troll, whine, whatever. If it came across that way, I'm sorry. I was just trying to make people realize that things like the Opera rating war are a <b>bad</b> thing that were, unfortunately, started by some members of the MozillaZine community, and they need to be openly denounced. The fact of the matter is, no matter if you ask for honest reviews and the like, it's
Yes, I use the mr_anon account - because I've made a total of like 3 or 4 comments on the MozillaZine frontpage, and didn't think it worth registering for that. Just FYI, my name IRL is Dougal Sutherland. My email is <email@example.com>. My forums account is w0073r. My AIM account is also w0073r. My Yahoo account is better_aao_champ. My MSN account is <firstname.lastname@example.org> (guess what my secondary email is). If you look up SUNYSB, that stands for State University of New York - Stony Brook, which is a university on Long Island, which applies I have some kind of connection with the math department there (which is true). Hell, my IP is 18.104.22.168 :p If you bother to look that up, that means I use Optimum Online, which is owned by Cablevision and operates in the northeast US.
That satisfy you? If you want, I'll even sign up, though it seems a waste as I doubt I'll be posting very much.
danielwang and Gnu got what I was trying to say pretty much right, and I absolutely agree with everything else they said.
#19 Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Friday July 16th, 2004 5:29 PM
"Opera rating war are a <b>bad</b> thing" !!
WTF? three or four fanboys on both sides giving the others some bad reviews on download.com is a "war" and it's "a bad thing". That's just silly. Seriously. Anyone who thinks this matters in the slightest needs to get out some. Do you think that the world cares about 5 or 10 or even 20 browser fans duking it out in a couple of forums? Why are you even wasting brain cycles thinking about something of such non-significance. There's work to be done making Mozilla (or Firefox or Opera or whatever) better. There's work to be done getting the word out about how great or how horrible some piece of software is. Making a mountain out of this silly little molehill is plain silly.
#29 Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Saturday July 17th, 2004 10:59 AM
The point isn't whether the world cares, the point is whether people in the "community" care. Rightly or wrongly, 20 browser fans duking it out upsets people, and saying "WTF are these whiney trolls bitching about" (in rather more words than that) will upset another bunch of people.
There is work to be done, and people are less likely to help you with the work if they're busy arguing with you and/or each other. By responding aggressively, you're adding fuel to the silly arguments, and adding, as you say, to the heat rather than the light.
>Quit your whining. >Boo-hoo! >This community has better things to do than get dragged down by whiners. >Seriously, grow up.
As an out-front spokesman for Mozilla I think you've really got to work on the tone of your discourse, the aggressive language and outright mean nature of the above post really reflects poorly on you, and ultimately on Mozilla as a whole. I know you see complaints all day, every day, I know you do a hell of a lot of work for Mozilla and have for quite some time (writing comments in the forums, writing build comments back when you did that, etc), you deserve a lot of praise for the hard work and dedication you've shown, but I don't think that gives you carte blanche to ridicule people publically.
In my opinion when you've got @mozilla.org attached to your email address you're speaking for Mozilla, as such despite how angry some posts make you feel I think you have a responsibility to respond in a reasonable manner. In order to make myself more clear I'll use an example: say I call Dell and start berating the tech support person because my stupid machine broke, I say they make lousy equipment and don't know what the hell they're doing. After some time the technician determines my laptop isn't working because I spilled a glass of orange juice on it. Despite the fact that he knows it's my fault he's still not allowed to start belittling me, he can calmly explain to the customer that Dell can't be held responsible for that sort of incident, but he must maintain a reasonable and professional tone.
Now, I'm guessing you're not getting paid to do this, but even as a volunteer you're still representing Mozilla, what you say can affect people's perceptions of the project and the organization. It's counterprodutive to the long-term goals of the organization to use this manner of speech towards anyone. If you really wish to get something off your chest might I recommend making a second account using a non-mozilla.org address, so that the opinions you express can't be construed to be the opinions of the organization?
Maybe this all seems a little ridiculous to you, but I feel that ultimately a friendlier, more helpful attitude will positively the public's perception of Mozilla, and ultimately the adoption of the browser and mail client.
Ugh, "publically".... I should really spell check before submitting.
#20 Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Friday July 16th, 2004 5:34 PM
"Maybe this all seems a little ridiculous to you."
Yep. Bitching and whining only works with me if you've actually contributed to this project. I'll probably even pay close attention to your bitching, possibly taking action as a result of it, if you've actually done something for this project. Anonymous cowards complaining about this or that just don't warrant my softer, gentler side.
#21 Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Friday July 16th, 2004 6:49 PM
Asa, do you actually mean to suggest that anyone you cannot name shouldn't bother to give you feedback you might disagree with?
I'm disgusted at the contempt you've shown to people who've given you criticism that's as constructive as it can be under the circumstances. That you don't recognise certain people posting anonymously as having done anything for Mozilla doesn't mean that they have done nothing: perhaps they reported a handful of bugs, maybe voted for some other bugs, answered a question on a forum, recommended the browser to friends or given feedback to a question on a blog; etc. Do you recognise every name in the Mozilla credits for example? Supporting Firefox at this level is somewhat more important than - um - taking issue with reviews that have a sensationalist headline, for example (people who regularly read Asa's blog will know what I mean, and guess where this week's Fight-Club-like "task" comes from).
I agree with all the posts under this thread, with the unfortunate exceptions of yours - although I do believe the Opera vs. Firefox review war to be petty.
#22 Re: Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Friday July 16th, 2004 6:51 PM
I should have signed the above in some way. I'm not the other mr_anon :) - "James."
#56 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Sunday July 25th, 2004 4:44 AM
I do not think this is the 'proper' use for bugmenot.com. Its intent is to get by all those thousands of sites which ask you for a shitload of personal information before letting you initiate a mere download, or something trivial like that. Its intention is not to provide anonymous posting accounts, though it unfortunately seems to be used for that.
#24 Re: Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Friday July 16th, 2004 8:06 PM
I was going to say something quite similar, albeit with not quite as much ire -- although I can't say I feel it wasn't too deserved.
Honestly, I'm not certain why the word "flaming" and "trolling" is getting tossed around in this case. All of the arguments against this have seemed fairly constructive and looking at the best interests of Firefox as a whole. I don't see anyone jumping in making blanket statements about "how retarded an idea it is" and leaving it at that, or raving on something like "omg u guys r st00pid, download.com suxxorz". Just because I think that this particular effort is a bit misdirected doesn't mean I feel that Mozilla's evangelism efforts haven't been otherwise effective over the past few years.
Directing a development project certainly can't be a democracy, but it doesn't mean the end-user loses his right to call it like he sees it.
#25 Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Friday July 16th, 2004 10:24 PM
Sorry that I'm not a dev. I have neither the skills nor the time (nor, since yesterday, the particular desire) to contribute code or anything on that level. That doesn't mean I, or anyone else whose name you don't recognize, haven't contributed to the project. Converting friends, helping people with their problems as best I can on the forums, things like that. I thought, for some reason -- maybe I was being naive -- that that was what a grassroots effort was about.
Again, calling me anonymous when I've posted my name, email, several screen names, and IP doesn't really apply.
If it makes you happy, though, I'm quite dissapointed with your (no, not Mozilla as a whole. I'm talking about you, asa, only. Blake Ross was at least civil) reaction to an honest attempt at advice. I realize that you probably have to deal with a lot of crap, but when you're talking with an email address ending in mozilla.org, you're representing the Foundation, and this is quite simply not the way the Foundation should appear. This is doing absolutely nothing to dispell the elitist geek preconception surrounding Mozilla.
I love Fx. I'm starting to not love the Foundation.
#27 Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Saturday July 17th, 2004 5:25 AM
asa, sorry, but your language is just outrageous.
bink's post was extremely accurate and civilised. that's no "bitching and whining"!
please stop insulting people on this forum.
you are an offical after all and you are representing the foundation in a very negative way. especially here on this forum among the people who really care about the whole mozilla thing.
#33 Re: Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Saturday July 17th, 2004 12:26 PM
#34 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Saturday July 17th, 2004 12:35 PM
he signs his posts "--Asa" you anonymous fool.
#37 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quit your whiny bitching
Saturday July 17th, 2004 4:02 PM
Alex, or one of the other mozillaZine admins, can you please ban this person that's attempting (rather incompetently) to impersonate me in this discussion? If anonymity isn't bad enough, surely the administrators realize that impersonating mischief like this is beyond the pale and really shouldn't be tolerated. Thanks.
#7 mr_anon Account
Friday July 16th, 2004 3:42 AM
If you must use the mr_anon account, please consider signing your messages with an alias so we can tell if we're hearing from new mr_anon or a regular.
Good idea. I'll do that from now on, on the rare occassion that I post.
Why not disable all stupid accounts listed on the bugmenot.com crapsite? Kerz is already doing that for the forums...
I think bugmenot.com violates the acceptable use policies of all websites. While using it for reading articles on websites that require free compulsory registration is still tolerable - using it for anyonymous posting is downright stupid.
If anyone admins or anyone is bothered with bugmenot, they can email <email@example.com> and have it removed from the site.
And if MozillaZine has an AUP, it's pretty well hidden.
Sorry, that was w0073r
I don't mind bugmenot, I don't want to sign up for mozillazine (right now, anyway) just to make this one comment.
<http://www.download.com/3…299359.html?pn=1&fb=2> All the negative reviews.
Here's my favorite idiot, apparently using IE and getting Cool Web Search before using firefox.
radd 14-Jul-2004 01:50:47 PM "Spyware, security holes..." Sorry but this is a disappointing piece of software. You get all kinds of spyware because of wide open security holes. Stick to the secure commercial alternatives. A hobbyist browser like this is unlikely to make your life easier.
I promised myself I was going to sign it, but between going to bugmenot and retyping the post, I forgot.
~~The Inedible Bulk (as on Wikipedia)
#40 Re: Firefox contains no spyware.
Saturday July 17th, 2004 8:55 PM
What about this one:
--- I tried this and I had to format my hard drive to get it off of my computer. It tied every thing up on my computer. I always thot that Cnet had checked their stuff on here but I just found out that they do not. It also put a virus on my computer, and beside not being able to get Mozilla Firefox off of my computer and to get the virus off of my computer , I had to format my hard drive. ---
Some people are just too computer-illiterate to live...
Today, only five reviews on <http://www.snapfiles.com> (ex webattack). OK, when they audit and publis my review there will be 6 :). Still we cannot miss such important site.
<http://andkon.com/stuf/mozillanewstrategy/> Real marketing begins with a focused website.
#47 BugMeNot Account Disabled
Sunday July 18th, 2004 12:43 PM
The mr_anon BugMeNot account has been disabled by Kerz.
We are looking into ways of enabling anonymous posting. The main problem is preventing spammers from advertising porn sites etc. If anyone can think of a good way of preventing this, please tell us.
Set up an autoresponder that requires a valid e-mail address to post - when someone posts an anon message, they get an e-mail with a link they click to activate the posting... much like the e-mail activation on some message-board accounts :)
#51 Re: Re: BugMeNot Account Disabled
Monday July 19th, 2004 5:35 AM
If we require a valid email address, it's not really anonymous though.
#52 Re: Re: Re: BugMeNot Account Disabled
Monday July 19th, 2004 6:29 AM
If you don't validate something (i.e. the poster is anonymous to you as well as everyone else), then there's no way of preventing spam and other abuse - all you can do is moderate it to remove the bad stuff, either before or after it appears on the page.
I don't see a need for it - it's possible to be anonymous from readers if you just use a handle instead of a real name. If you don't require people to make some kind of effort in order to post, then the quality of the post (whether it's actually spam or just rubbish) will reflect that, and it'll be the reader that has to make the effort to sort out what's worth looking at.
#55 Re: Re: Re: Re: BugMeNot Account Disabled
Thursday July 22nd, 2004 3:26 PM
It doesn't really bother me. I set up an account here for the rare posting I do here. I think I could trust this place not to sell my e-mail address to some spam company.
As to the solution of anonymous posting, I've seen it on sites such as Livejournal that require a verification image/sound to prevent spambots from spamming forums like this. However, it would still require some moderation in case a real human puts in the effort to spam this forum 20 million times.
#53 Re: BugMeNot Account Disabled
Monday July 19th, 2004 10:12 AM
Perhaps all anon stuff could be automatically shielded, never appearing automatically as a full text message in the forum (perhaps just a red "anon post" link). Someone would have to click on it to expand it.
If people want to be anonymous, they should not have the priveleges to full access that members have.
#54 Re: Re: BugMeNot Account Disabled
Tuesday July 20th, 2004 3:01 AM
"Perhaps all anon stuff could be automatically shielded, never appearing automatically as a full text message in the forum (perhaps just a red 'anon post' link). Someone would have to click on it to expand it."
That's not a bad idea. Have you run a community-driven website before? ;-)