Debate: Should the Vanguard Eliminate Anonymous Posts

I have received a lot of feedback in the last few weeks on the issue of anonymous posters. The chief problem is really that there are a lot of people who post under anonymous and therefore it is difficult of keeping track of each individual.

The alternative has some drawbacks. In order to eliminate the anonymous feature, I would have to require people to register with google in order to post. They would still be able to hide their identity. I would not know who was registered under what moniker. And I would lay out instructions for registering under a given moniker.

But before I do take that step, I would like a full discussion. And I am also putting it up in a poll. I will take this under advisement, I will not be bound by the results.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Archives

173 comments

  1. Burt said…

    Right or wrong you will lose a large part of the discussion you prize so much if you require registration. I can’t see how anonymous posting has in anyway hurt the discussion on this blog. If you want to go back to being just another blog, then limit it to only people who register.
    require

  2. Burt said…

    Right or wrong you will lose a large part of the discussion you prize so much if you require registration. I can’t see how anonymous posting has in anyway hurt the discussion on this blog. If you want to go back to being just another blog, then limit it to only people who register.
    require

  3. Burt said…

    Right or wrong you will lose a large part of the discussion you prize so much if you require registration. I can’t see how anonymous posting has in anyway hurt the discussion on this blog. If you want to go back to being just another blog, then limit it to only people who register.
    require

  4. Burt said…

    Right or wrong you will lose a large part of the discussion you prize so much if you require registration. I can’t see how anonymous posting has in anyway hurt the discussion on this blog. If you want to go back to being just another blog, then limit it to only people who register.
    require

  5. I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

    The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

    Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

    Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.

  6. I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

    The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

    Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

    Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.

  7. I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

    The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

    Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

    Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.

  8. I’ve noted there are no spam comments on this site, so that is not a problem.

    The discussion can be vigorous but you don’t seem to have a particular problem with trolls.

    Some blogs allow people to put down a name and an email address to verify, which does not display. I think that’s an antispam thing though.

    Overall I think you would lose a lot of the discussion.

  9. There are two main functions of comment postings. One is to engage in a back and forth debate, the other is to just offer ideas. I come down firmly in favor or maintaining the ability to post anonymously. My reasons are the following:
    1. The Vanguard has been able to maintain a high caliber of comment by its posters under the present system. There does not appear to be excessive verbal abuse that anonymous postings, claimed by some, would encourage.
    2. Debates between anonymous posters have been identified(the spontaneous cleverness of Vanguardians) by identifying the anonymous poster by time entered.
    3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.
    4. Most importantly, the Vanguard should be as easily accessible, with the fewest “hoops to jump threw”. We want the Vanguard to be
    drawing new people into our on-line community. Grassroots power involves drawing in these new people, having them read(and hopefully participate) and find that there are others who have a similiar perspective to theirs… that they are not alone in their hopes and beliefs. When this group reaches a critical mass, change occurs!!

  10. There are two main functions of comment postings. One is to engage in a back and forth debate, the other is to just offer ideas. I come down firmly in favor or maintaining the ability to post anonymously. My reasons are the following:
    1. The Vanguard has been able to maintain a high caliber of comment by its posters under the present system. There does not appear to be excessive verbal abuse that anonymous postings, claimed by some, would encourage.
    2. Debates between anonymous posters have been identified(the spontaneous cleverness of Vanguardians) by identifying the anonymous poster by time entered.
    3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.
    4. Most importantly, the Vanguard should be as easily accessible, with the fewest “hoops to jump threw”. We want the Vanguard to be
    drawing new people into our on-line community. Grassroots power involves drawing in these new people, having them read(and hopefully participate) and find that there are others who have a similiar perspective to theirs… that they are not alone in their hopes and beliefs. When this group reaches a critical mass, change occurs!!

  11. There are two main functions of comment postings. One is to engage in a back and forth debate, the other is to just offer ideas. I come down firmly in favor or maintaining the ability to post anonymously. My reasons are the following:
    1. The Vanguard has been able to maintain a high caliber of comment by its posters under the present system. There does not appear to be excessive verbal abuse that anonymous postings, claimed by some, would encourage.
    2. Debates between anonymous posters have been identified(the spontaneous cleverness of Vanguardians) by identifying the anonymous poster by time entered.
    3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.
    4. Most importantly, the Vanguard should be as easily accessible, with the fewest “hoops to jump threw”. We want the Vanguard to be
    drawing new people into our on-line community. Grassroots power involves drawing in these new people, having them read(and hopefully participate) and find that there are others who have a similiar perspective to theirs… that they are not alone in their hopes and beliefs. When this group reaches a critical mass, change occurs!!

  12. There are two main functions of comment postings. One is to engage in a back and forth debate, the other is to just offer ideas. I come down firmly in favor or maintaining the ability to post anonymously. My reasons are the following:
    1. The Vanguard has been able to maintain a high caliber of comment by its posters under the present system. There does not appear to be excessive verbal abuse that anonymous postings, claimed by some, would encourage.
    2. Debates between anonymous posters have been identified(the spontaneous cleverness of Vanguardians) by identifying the anonymous poster by time entered.
    3. The concept that IDEAS are validated by the name that is attached to it is an elitist concept. The ideas can stand by themselves, for the readers to weigh for content, not the status of the poster.
    4. Most importantly, the Vanguard should be as easily accessible, with the fewest “hoops to jump threw”. We want the Vanguard to be
    drawing new people into our on-line community. Grassroots power involves drawing in these new people, having them read(and hopefully participate) and find that there are others who have a similiar perspective to theirs… that they are not alone in their hopes and beliefs. When this group reaches a critical mass, change occurs!!

  13. it’s a tricky thing. one does not want to inadvertently scare off potential participants, but it does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but i’m not sure that blogger has that option available.

  14. it’s a tricky thing. one does not want to inadvertently scare off potential participants, but it does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but i’m not sure that blogger has that option available.

  15. it’s a tricky thing. one does not want to inadvertently scare off potential participants, but it does get maddeningly difficult to sort through the various anonymous posters on the heavily-trafficked threads. i wish there was a way to just require a pseudonym but nothing beyond that, but i’m not sure that blogger has that option available.