Not allowing them forces them to use their name or handle so we know who writes what going forward.
Allowing them keeps opinions from stealth beat writers or other bloggers
Your call here guys
Mack’s Mets – the premier site for information on the New York Mets talent pipeline and dialogue on Mets prospects, Mets news, and Mets opinions.
17 comments:
The issue to me isn't whether they are named or not named. After all, we have all been guilty on occasion of losing our cool and posting something we'd probably had been better off keeping to ourselves. If some folks are more secure or comfortable posting anonymously, then I have no issue with it. However, if anyone is out of line with insults or non-topic-specific content, then that person should be banned, named or not.
Agree
Delete offensive posts.
Sad part is there is no banning on blogspot
don't know if some are technologically challenged or just prefer anonymity, but for the most part, those who post that way, such as Jimmy, have interesting things to say. recently, someone anonymously made some rather rude and pointless comments regarding a Mike Steffanos article. that sort of thing is relatively rare, and Mike seemed to handle it quite well. hate to thin out the comment section by blocking anonymous ones.
I agree with Reese........more participation is better, even if a few of the posters show their a@# sometimes. As stated earlier, if someone has the cloak of anonymity, they will more likely tell it like it is. I don't suffer from that problem, since I lack a filter according to my wife.
Nonetheless, if an anonymous poster goes off the rails, I just ignore the post and move on, so it doesn't bother me.
I would prefer that anonymous folks make up a name, like Metamucil, and just stick with it, so we know this particular anonymous person from another. Would I cut them off? No. But if they are both anonymous and extremely long in their commentary, I am far less apt to read it.
We could set up the site so that all comments are reviewed before being posted - not something I favor - too much work.
Xx Sticks and stones…
It seems to me better to let them have their say and only remove a comment that really crosses the line into obscenity.
I feel that if anyone writes something and they can’t put their name behind it, they shouldn’t write it at all. I don’t know if many - or any off the top of my head - that allow you to comment without using a name, and most want something definitive like a Google account or Facebook. Just having a handle is really pretty small when you think about it. Not exactly asking for a pint of blood, just an accountability.
So my comment is this . . .
Mack's Mets had a community of writers and commenters and while you all know me as Remember1969, I am consistent in my handle. If you want to know me as Bill, that would be fine as well. A specific name or handle gives us a little more 'relationship' and continuity with the commenters. How many people post as "Anonymous"?
Why not just come up with a name or handle and stick with it? Or sign the comment like Jimmy does (btw - haven't seen Jimmy in a while?) You can't have an e-mail ID without a name, why not here?
BTW. I think 'Anonymous' adds good comments most of the time, although the two in the comments above are not helpful.
(And giving a pint of blood is not much work . every eight weeks!)
R 1969, we’ll put. Gus, understandable point of view.
I'm with Gus. Most of us post with artificial names anyway (believe it or not, my name isn't really Metsiac!), but attaching a name to a post gives it "identity", and a feeling of comfort.
I'd rather respond to "Bobby Valentine" or "Clark Kent" than Anonymous or Unknown. Is ir really difficult to come up with a "handle", anyway?
Think it over anons.
I will leave them on
Awhile back i wrote a post in effect calling anonymous something unflattering. Mack refused to allow the post to go forward. I am much more considerate these days.
I'm not.perect.
Post a Comment