Your Display Names and the Challenge Of 10 Million Members
-
I've been around for over 9 years now and unless you get a ton of up votes your points don't rise very quickly.
Articles can help, I'm getting 15-20 points a day even if I don't do anything because of people reading those and downloading the source zips. But yeah if you care about reputation then being active in reputation hotspots like here, language forums and Q&A is a good idea.
-
Articles can help, I'm getting 15-20 points a day even if I don't do anything because of people reading those and downloading the source zips. But yeah if you care about reputation then being active in reputation hotspots like here, language forums and Q&A is a good idea.
All of mine are done as blog post, they don't seem to hold as much weight as the ones posted directly. I use Live writer to write with. I have trouble with the online article writer.I'm not a web guy. Even a my Source code download is only worth 1 point, but if I download someone elses I get 2 points. Oh well I'm not here for the points or the prestige anyway. I just hope what I write will help others.
-
I think it makes more sense to 'retire' accounts that haven't been active at all for (say) 3 years. That way you free up display names of people who really aren't here, without getting into a position of allowing clashes of active members, or silly games (for example imagine Griff decided he wanted to troll me, he could set his name to mine and he would get priority as he's made more contributions lately).
I think retiring unused names (and allowing others to 'reserve' them) would be a good idea. When I signed up I wanted 'StarNamer' as I use it on many other sites (e.g. StackOverflow[^], AskUbuntu[^] and other StackExchange sites). Unfortunately, it was already registered so I had to be satisfied with 'StarNamer_'[^]. As far as I can tell, the original 'starnamer'[^] has never posted anything and simply has the initial 100 points for signing up! Really frustrating! It wouldn't be so annoying if (s)he was a reasonably active member!
-
I think I have a fairly solid understanding of what gray is, and how it may, for instance, motivate someone to pick an actual unique name instead of sticking with a used name. However, there are those that really wouldn't care. And that's fine.
Chris Maunder wrote:
I think I have a fairly solid understanding of what gray is...
I can see it all now. CodeProject is responsible for 2 of the shades of gray...
Windows 8 is the resurrected version of Microsoft Bob. The only thing missing is the Fisher-Price logo. - Harvey
-
For new members it's hard to get a display name that's your actual name. Almost impossible. However, we have tons of members who really don't care if their name is the same as someone else's name. I was thinking that it could be interesting to open up Display Names so that you can choose whatever name you want, even if it's been taken by someone else, with a small cavet: If you haven't contributed a message or article, question or answer, your display name is plain text and it will be displayed in gray. Each time you contribute, or each time you change your name, your name is checked against the list and if you're account is the only account with that name that has made a contribution then your name is yours and is unlocked to accept HTML, and will (by default) be displayed in a dark font. Thoughts?
Bad idea, I think you will be opening Pandora's box with such "feature", I second the motion to recycle unused accounts, say if an account hasn't had activity for 3 years or more; anyway, I think that anyone who hasn't used his account in 3 years, it doesn't even remember his password nor that it have an account on first place.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
For new members it's hard to get a display name that's your actual name. Almost impossible. However, we have tons of members who really don't care if their name is the same as someone else's name. I was thinking that it could be interesting to open up Display Names so that you can choose whatever name you want, even if it's been taken by someone else, with a small cavet: If you haven't contributed a message or article, question or answer, your display name is plain text and it will be displayed in gray. Each time you contribute, or each time you change your name, your name is checked against the list and if you're account is the only account with that name that has made a contribution then your name is yours and is unlocked to accept HTML, and will (by default) be displayed in a dark font. Thoughts?
How does this solve the issue? It seems like its simply creating a new namespace with the same old problems. If you allow multiple people to post under the same name, but only one gets it rendered dark, wouldn't that be hugely confusing for casual users? Personally, I'd rather have unique user names on every post that're easily trackable back to that specific user.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
Wow! That shows how much attention I've been giving rep points! You almost think that Griff was one of the Founding Sheep Shaggers Members! :omg:
Will Rogers never met me.
-
BobJanova wrote:
I think it makes more sense to 'retire' accounts that haven't been active at all for (say) 3 years
If that person has posted an article, regardless of how old it is (OK, maybe a decade is a good cutoff) they should still have the right to "their" name.
-
I think retiring unused names (and allowing others to 'reserve' them) would be a good idea. When I signed up I wanted 'StarNamer' as I use it on many other sites (e.g. StackOverflow[^], AskUbuntu[^] and other StackExchange sites). Unfortunately, it was already registered so I had to be satisfied with 'StarNamer_'[^]. As far as I can tell, the original 'starnamer'[^] has never posted anything and simply has the initial 100 points for signing up! Really frustrating! It wouldn't be so annoying if (s)he was a reasonably active member!
-
Christopher Duncan wrote:
Sounds like a recipe for impersonation.
Another outburst like that and I'll ban you! just kidding. not the real Chris Maunder
