Share this content

Minimum posts before anonymity?

Should there be a minimum threshoild, and if so what should it be?

Didn't find your answer?

Posted anonymously - because i saw the option as I was about to post and rather liked the Irony of it, but this is a genuine question, inspired by this gem:

So, other platforms have a minimum post level before you are allowed to do certain things (be that PM other users, access sales pages, etc).  Should Sift apply the same system here?  There really is no need to post anomynously for most people (especially those who hide behind a seemingly meaningless username) but i can see limited instances where it can be helpful or might be necessary if your public identity is available, or has been revealed previously.  Various people have already appealed for removal or alteration of the anonymous function without success, so is this a feasable option?

If so, what should the limit be?  In some cases the threshold is set too low, and people spam the platform to get their quota up.  To prevent that, would it be acceptable to prevent anonymous posting until someone reaches, say, 50 posts?  100?  Should you actually be a seasoned/regular contributor before you earn such a right?

Replies (9)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By paulwakefield1
21st Mar 2019 18:04

Because I use my real name, it is the case that I have not posted questions in the past because there was a real danger of client identification (or being identified by a client!).

So an anonymous option appeals but, since the system on this forum reveals the user name as soon as you reply, it is pretty ineffective.

Personally I don't care if people post anonymously especially since it only applies to the question itself but I know it winds some people up.

Thanks (0)
Replying to paulwakefield1:
By penelope pitstop
22nd Mar 2019 02:44

Accusation! - You are not the real Paul Wakefield! You are merely attempting to throw us off the scent!

You are in fact Melissa Smith, the World Cornish pasty eating champion 1991 to 1993. I can fully understand your reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, and yes, it does not look pretty, but you cannot fool me!

Why do you not use a creative pseudonym rather than hide behind the rather bland "Paul Wakefield". Do you have no imagination whatsoever.

Everyone knows that the real Paul Wakefield, accountant extraordinaire, would never grace this feeble website with his glorious presence.

P.S. Do real Cornish Pasties contain turnip or swede?

P.P.S I do not like the OP question whatsoever. It is an invitation for every lunatic accountant to crawl out of the woodwork and respond with the most ludicrous of comments!

Thanks (0)
Replying to penelope pitstop:
By paulwakefield1
22nd Mar 2019 07:47

Drat, drat and double drat! Rumbled. Well done Penelope.



PS Also 1994

Thanks (1)
Replying to penelope pitstop:
By atleastisoundknowledgable...
22nd Mar 2019 07:53

Hate to be petty, but I actually won in 1991. I was self-identifying as female at the time.

Thanks (1)
By stepurhan
22nd Mar 2019 09:00

What Sift should do is actually police the Anonymous function properly. Under the option to post anonymously it states

Sift wrote:
Any abuse of the ability to publish anonymously will not be tolerated and offending users will be banned from AccountingWEB.

It would be easy to review the Anonymous posts daily, judge if they breach this and ban the offending users. That really doesn't seem to be happening at present.

If a post requirement is introduced, then I think it needs a relatively low number. Based on the typical activity I see on here, you'd have to be an unusually active member to reach 50 posts in a reasonable length of time.

Thanks (0)
By JCresswellTax
22nd Mar 2019 09:45

Pointless chat - Sift don't care.

Thanks (3)
By Duggimon
22nd Mar 2019 10:50

There is literally no reason to use the anonymous function when it takes all of two minutes to set up a new account and effectively be anonymous.

Removing the function won't help improve the questions coming from people who register to ask for advice they would be better seeking from a paid for professional, it will just make them harder to spot without clicking on them.

Thanks (1)
By pawncob
22nd Mar 2019 12:51

Surely it's your own fault for responding to an anonymous question. Doh!

Thanks (0)
By Accountant A
22nd Mar 2019 16:06

There should be a moratorium of, say, one month before a new joiner can post. That would flush out 90% of 'one time' freeloaders who join, ask a question and then disappear, never to be seen again.

Thanks (3)
Share this content