i received this digest link and it doesnt work , can find the commenst referred to . waste of bloody time again... AND the tags are still worse than useless and one cant add to them
https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/comment/574161#comment-574161
Replies (23)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Not only which posters can award a "like" to their own post; not to mention "thank" their own comment.
And as for security, members who haven't masked their identities have their real names appear on their home pages.
Not to mention the spate of posters deleting their original question after people have taken the time to answer. This needs to either be stopped entirely (no amendment of questions once posted) or become a banning offence.
Agreed, Stepurhan. There is a temporary, though far from perfect, solution - the first respondent should quote/copy the entire question into their post.
Yes, but the 1984 Newspeak goes even higher, right to Big Brother within A Web.
I complained about deletions on a thread last night, the OP had deleted the question and their responses, this morning I can only find/locate the thread via the link from "my answers" but it is now unavailable to view; A Web control at work.
Frankly, what is the point in contributing here?
I cannot work out if this is general January malaise or if I really am pretty fed up with this whole site now.
Methinks a period of downing tools might be in order, I have never taken part in a strike before so it might be exciting,
what do we want
..............................
when do we want it, now
Agreed, Stepurhan. There is a temporary, though far from perfect, solution - the first respondent should quote/copy the entire question into their post. However, I may be barking up the wrong tree as there is a cockwomblin' flaw in that.
That'll never fly.
Ruddles wrote:
Agreed, Stepurhan. There is a temporary, though far from perfect, solution - the first respondent should quote/copy the entire question into their post.
Excellent idea.
Banning people won't stop it happening.
Those that delete their thread are unlikely to return, or are very infrequent users anyway.
On SIFT's sister-site, UKBF, members are far more open about their identities (many use the Any Answers section to showcase their talents, and provide a link to their business).
I've seen similar sites for teachers, lawyers, and engineers where by and large identities aren't masked, meaning no monkey-business from hit-and-run posters.
Maybe the hour has come for the masquerade ball to end on Aweb. (Maybe that's why the real names and email addresses are unsecured on this new incarnation of the site).
Well, that might well have some posters deciding that they will delete all their prior posts rather destroying the store of knowledge within the site. (Though possibly not so much if I merely deleted all mine)
I wonder if I should ask Portia (given her wholesale deletions a while ago) whether there is a quick route to doing this or is it just a matter of wading through each post previously made.
The postings are up there for eternity in internet archive sites such as Wayback.
Wouldn't it make nonsense of threads if just one or two posters were to remove their comments? Isn't editing comments that way the very thing being complained about?
Yes it would (already does to a degree)
Yes it is.
But if identities were to be carte blanche revealed I suspect a fair few posters might decide to delete their postings en masse, possibly killing the Any Answers part of the site.
Geese and Golden eggs.
But if identities were to be carte blanche revealed I suspect a fair few posters might decide to delete their postings en masse, possibly killing the Any Answers part of the site.
What happens at meet-ups? Do you all wear masks?
I do understand all the reasons why members might want to hide their IDs to protect themselves against potential claims from freeloaders - on UKBF some use a disclaimer - but why so secretive on Aweb these days? Are there trolls? Is Stephuran meaner than he looks? Might First Tab cycle round to your office to beat the cr@p out of you?
Very much so, especially when people mis-spell my name. ;-) Is Stephuran meaner than he looks?
It's more about being able to choose who you share your real identity with. There are trolls here, and some people have become extremely hostile when they don't get the answers they want. I was once threatened with legal action for pointing out a repeated theme in another user's posts (whilst noting that a recent court case appeared to imply that there may be issues with that theme).
But another factor is that we will usually be asking queries about client matters. I don't use UKBF, but I am assuming from the name that is more people asking about their own affairs. When asking about clients, even in broad terms, you need to do all you can to maintain confidentiality. Not to mention you don't want clients thinking you don't know what you are talking about by needing to ask in the first place (though this will be a concern for some more than others).
There are trolls here, and some people have become extremely hostile when they don't get the answers they want.
People hear what they want to hear - hence the UKBF disclaimers, I guess.
When asking about clients, even in broad terms, you need to do all you can to maintain confidentiality.
Ahha, I see. Come to think of it, I seem remember that's why everyone used a non-de-plume when I joined Aweb way back when.
Not to mention you don't want clients thinking you don't know what you are talking about by needing to ask in the first place (though this will be a concern for some more than others).
That's always puzzled me. On recent visits to a GP and a solicitor, I've been told "I don't know, so I'll refer you to a specialist". That doesn't seem to happen so much with accountants. I'm put in mind of John Cleese who, in his autobiography, says he was in a turmoil during his stint as a public school teacher because he felt obliged to know all there was to know about everything under the sun. (Later on, Cambridge cured him of that).
Generally no meet ups for me, as far as I am aware I have only ever met one person who posts here.
The point is not why so secretive, it is more the implicit understanding re one's identity upon initially signing up.
There is underlying that understanding the question of trust between the poster and the site, once that trust is broken it is hard to restore; is it not reasonable for a poster to think, well if they will do that what else will they do?
Generally no meet ups for me, as far as I am aware I have only ever met one person who posts here.
Not like the Jolly and sometimes impromptu outings on UKBF then.
There is underlying that understanding the question of trust between the poster and the site, once that trust is broken it is hard to restore.
Nothing like team spirit!
The issue with names being visible on public profile pages was the unintended consequence of a site upgrade on Thursday. We were trying to display usernames for certain types of role (columnists who write for us on a freelance basis, for example), but the switch was mistakenly applied to all members.
This has now been corrected. If you find the still occurring please get in touch with us.
Although it was tested in line with our usual procedures, this issue slipped through the net. It was an unacceptable lapse and we're investigating what went wrong to prevent any recurrences in the future.
As far as names appearing on Wayback machine, it would have had to capture every member's profile page on the site during the past 3 days. Since it only tends to visit us 3-4 times a year, I am hoping the chance of a mass data release will be minimal (and I'll just go check that now).
We're aware of some of the data issues mentioned continue to list them on our development review plans.
The debate about anonymity is a perpetual issue for us and when it works as intended, the current implementation is the best solution we have found to meet the needs of a majority of our members. It's worth pointing out that as happens on UKBF, some AccountingWEB are happy to reveal themselves and see their home page as a promotional platform for their firm and services.
The opportunity still exists in Any Answers for these members to post an "Anonymous" query - but there is no facility to comment anonymously.
And just to make it clear, everyone at AccountingWEB is sorry for causing anxiety over the weekend with the visible IDs.
What type of unintended consequence is it this time?
Is it the type you knew would happen, or the type you didn't think would happen?
I'd forgotten that.What type of unintended consequence is it this time?
Is it the type you knew would happen, or the type you didn't think would happen?
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
To have one breach of confidentiality may be regarded as a misfortune. To have two looks like carelessness.
I wonder how many profiles still have any accurate information in them beyond a valid e-mail address.
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde.
To have one breach of confidentiality may be regarded as a misfortune. To have two looks like carelessness.
Oscar also said: "My own business always bores me to death; I prefer other people’s."
Which leads me to ask, what is the pixel.rubiconproject.com program that slows my computer by loading itself each time I access Aweb? Have I a malware virus, or could this be Aweb-generated adware?