Member Names

[Aaron Koehl]

There are features to automatically add new registrants to a moderation queue. However, there is one consideration. Most people register when they're ready to post for the first time. If they have to wait half a day (or a whole day) to become registered after they post, they will likely balk.

It's a consideration..

[Dennis Peacock]

There are features to automatically add new registrants to a moderation queue. However, there is one consideration. Most people register when they're ready to post for the first time. If they have to wait half a day (or a whole day) to become registered after they post, they will likely balk.

It's a consideration..

Not if you explain to them in the signup process that they will need to wait for an approval. A board or two that I'm on do this and it appears to work fine.

[Karl Laustrup]

There are features to automatically add new registrants to a moderation queue. However, there is one consideration. Most people register when they're ready to post for the first time. If they have to wait half a day (or a whole day) to become registered after they post, they will likely balk.

It's a consideration..

In light of the post Saturday morning, I don't see how we can't have a waiting period before membership is granted.

I really don't think it's that big a deal [the wait] to someone who is truly interested in this community.

Just my $1.398 worth.

Karl

[Rob Bodenschatz]

Aaron's point is valid. Creating another barrier of entry will result in losing a percentage of new participants. Just the way it is nowadays. People are more impatient than ever.

Of course, you could try it out, track the results, and change back later if you want.

[Glenn Clabo]

A slight hesitation may be a good thing. Every other forum I've belonged to that makes one wait has less gun and run posts.

[Lee DeRaud]

Aaron's point is valid. Creating another barrier of entry will result in losing a percentage of new participants. Just the way it is nowadays. People are more impatient than ever.

I'm not sure that's really true.

I just took a quick look at the member list, first sorting by post count and then by sign-up date. Since October 1, we've had ~150 new members sign up, but nearly 2/3 of them (98) haven't posted yet. Even taking into account the fact that a decent percentage of people who sign up never post, that doesn't indicate a huge amount of impatience on the part of new members.

And quite frankly, if someone is that impatient to post, a "cooling-off" period might not be that bad an idea.

Of course, you could try it out, track the results, and change back later if you want.

The only results to track are member sign-ups...unless we're in some kind of race to reach X members, what's the problem?

[Aaron Koehl]

That's a good point too.

[Aaron Koehl]

New member moderation is now turned on.

[Ken Mutch]

Hi
No problem with the idea of real names or aliases either.
A lot of ideas on how to create extra work have been put forward, but my real problem is how will you do it? How will you verify that the person is actually using their real name or possibly an assumed name? Bear in mind that "normal" sounding names just don't not cut it either. What do you do when someone signs up with a name of December, Blessing, Khumalo, or any of the other not so usual names? I would strongly suggest you do not overload and distract the "staff" with an impossible mission that probably has little value.
Please stand up the real Ken Mutch
Cheers,
Ken

[Frank Fusco]

While I have no problem with the concept of using real names, I do wonder 'why?' it is required. There are jillions of forums out there functioning just fine with members using handles. I know people who won't join because they have concerns about internet security using their real names. I know it is a rule here and I am not arguing that. I just don't see any value to it.

[Jim Becker]

It generates a sense of community, Frank...one of the prime goals of SMC.

[John Bailey]

I would agree with Jim and add that the rule also generates a sense of comity and freindship. I agree there are many sites that function well without this rule, but I've not experienced any that was as welcoming to such a wide diversity of folks as the "Creek." I value that.

John

[Dennis Peacock]

I would agree with Jim and add that the rule also generates a sense of comity and freindship. I agree there are many sites that function well without this rule, but I've not experienced any that was as welcoming to such a wide diversity of folks as the "Creek." I value that.

John

I both agree AND concur!!!!!

[Rick Doyle]

It generates a sense of community, Frank...one of the prime goals of SMC.

I agree with this too, Jim. I believe it also generates responsibility and accountability as well. With your own name attached to posts, I believe it helps to make us all just a bit more 'thoughtful' about what we say in our posts - and, that's always a good thing! The results here speak for themselves.

Can individuals sign-up with phony first and last names? Of course! But, if they do have 'evil intentions' and violate posting rules they will soon run afoul of a moderator or other members and be dealt with under the normal forum rules. Nothing is really 100% effective against someone who signs up with the specific intent of causing problems - until they break the posting rules!

I operate my own very small woodworking forum and while I do allow aliases(I need all the members I can get ), I find on the rare occasion I have a problem, it is never a person using a real looking first and last name - always an alias. It's like wearing a mask!

I think the member approval method just put in place is reasonable and should not discourage anyone who truly has an interest in joining SMC. Keep up the good work!

Rick

[Aaron Koehl]

I agree with this too, Jim. I believe it also generates responsibility and accountability as well. With your own name attached to posts, I believe it helps to make us all just a bit more 'thoughtful' about what we say in our posts - and, that's always a good thing! The results here speak for themselves.

Can individuals sign-up with phony first and last names? Of course! But, if they do have 'evil intentions' and violate posting rules they will soon run afoul of a moderator or other members and be dealt with under the normal forum rules. Nothing is really 100% effective against someone who signs up with the specific intent of causing problems - until they break the posting rules!

I operate my own very small woodworking forum and while I do allow aliases(I need all the members I can get ), I find on the rare occasion I have a problem, it is never a person using a real looking first and last name - always an alias. It's like wearing a mask!

I think the member approval method just put in place is reasonable and should not discourage anyone who truly has an interest in joining SMC. Keep up the good work!

Rick

We (Keith and I) have had great success these past few weeks by manually approving user names in the approval queue. I expect it will continue this way. We have been able to catch several questionable names since this started. Is it a perfect method? No, but it's not designed to be an authentication scheme. It just screens out some of the obviously junky or misformed names and makes our work much easier. (Much easier than sending a message, waiting for a private message response, changing the name, etc).