![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aedifica) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2009-10-29 03:09 pm
Half-anonymous commenting: commenter must leave name but doesn't have to log in
Title:
Half-anonymous commenting: commenter must leave name but doesn't have to log in
Area:
Comments by non-Dreamwidth users
Summary:
A comment-posting option that does not require the commenter to be logged in but does require the commenter to leave a name or handle.
Description:
Problem to be solved: A lot of people I know on LJ haven't gotten the hang of this OpenID thing and use the "anonymous" option instead when commenting on Dreamwidth entries. However, these commenters who use the "anonymous" option often forget to sign their comments, which bugs me because I want to know who the comment is from. Yet I don't want to turn off anonymous commenting altogether, because I want my LJ friends to be able to comment on my Dreamwidth entries.
Proposed solution (two parts):
1. Create a new level of authentication for comments, where no login is required but there is a text box labeled "Name" that requires input before the comment can be submitted.
2. Add this new option to the choices Dreamwidth users already have for what level of comments to allow on their journals (the option is on the Manage Account page, Privacy tab). Current choices are to allow comments from Everybody, Registered Accounts, Access List, or Nobody.
Possible drawbacks: I can't think of any unless this would be a complicated thing to code.
Alternatively, I suggest something identical to this but with a box for Name and a second box for Email Address instead of just the one box for Name. Once the comment is posted, the email address used would not be visible to anyone except the journal owner, like how IP address tracking works already. In practice this option would be like what a lot of blogs use for comments.
Possible drawbacks to the alternate option: This option seems like it would be more complicated to code because of hiding the email address, but that might be easier than I think it would because something similar is already in place for IP addresses.
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
16 (45.7%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (11.4%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
4 (11.4%)
(I have no opinion)
4 (11.4%)
(Other: please comment)
7 (20.0%)
no subject