If we keep this feature, it could be opt-in, or opt-out, or mandatory. I'm thinking about it and welcome your input. For now, I just want to see how the concept is received. Don't worry, all the usernames are stored in the database so we can always change things back.

One other idea is allowing you to choose a threshold you prefer. So you might want to anonymize poasts older than 1 year, whereas someone else might only care to do it for poasts older than 3 years or not at all. I could also restrict the capability to poasts older than 1 year or x years, so people don't just use it to poast anonymously with a threshold of 0. That would suck and I don't want that.

If you want to see the feature in action, just check out an old thread with old poasts. I can't promise we keep the feature, that's why I want your input.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515322)

The majority seems to agree that if the feature is implemented, it should be optional.

It looks like those who are pro like it for the enhanced privacy. Those who are con are against it because it eliminates subtext and allows people to hide from exchanges that are part of the public record.

My primary goal was to enhance privacy, but maybe it's not as much of a concern for most people as I thought. For years I've heard from people who believed they were being tracked using information they had poasted previously, so that was where I was coming from. There's a difference between anonymity and privacy, and you don't really have anonymity if your identity follows you. Only privacy, which can be violated outside of this site.

Just keep in mind, if you don't like pumos, there really isn't any alternative for people who want to be un-Googleable other than just robots.txt'ing the whole site. I don't want to do that. If someone archives your shit and harasses you IRL, I can't protect you from that.

I do think opt-in anonymization isn't such a bad option. Subtext/context will still be able to be ascertained if most of the other poasters in the thread are not masked.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34520863)

*rubs hands together*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515327)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2406528&mc=79&forum_id=2#24380966

thoughts?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515339)

the other thing is that old threads that are obviously one person's are not truly anonymized. someone can search for old threads having the string "PDDJ" and those arent anon since they're obviously linked to an OP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515369)

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2792705&mc=99&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515356)

every time i click "refresh" on an old thread almost all monikers change to something random

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515358)

think opt-in to randomization might be better though, at least before a certain threshold like six years or something. sometimes good to see who made a post when it's still semi-recent and those posters are most likely still aware enough to come on xo and blank things if necessary.

think it would be better just to preserve authors and people can blank what they want if necessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515385)

yet we allow unhinged pumos to exist why?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515364)

-Snowman tactful skinny woman

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515398)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515400)

On some old threads I started I definitely want my ownership of said thread to shine through. For instance:

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2868069&mc=296&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515415)

I just think people are always concerned about being stalked and researched and before I launch a better search, I want to see if we can do something like this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515425)

http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2032691&mc=55&forum_id=2

And all the older bboom posts!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515443)

Also, it sucks to make a 180 thread, have someone bump it two years later but then get no recognition that it was yours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515550)

I think I will do that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515562)

we don't need to be assigning mods a "job" to do and we don't need a politburo deciding what's "classic"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515577)

its just an idea i had

shrug

whether or not rach decides to do anonymization for all or just opt in, marking some threads as Classic and not allowing for anonymization within them i think is useful for preserving boart content

*edit* it wouldnt be assigning them a job. i dont mean it like a mod would be expected to do it a certain # per week or anything. i just mean if someone saw an old thread that they wanted to be marked classic, they could indicate that and a mod or rach could just click on the C. would take no time at all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515581)

im just saying that if we do the anonymization thing, that marking a thread as classic and not allowing anonymization within it is an EASY way to avoid people crying about their content being ruined. thats all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515675)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515690)

just make anonymization an opt-in choice. if people think privacy is a big deal then they'll opt in. very straight-forward.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515570)

im saying this is a good way to avoid having old threads anonymized, thats all

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515613)

god knows we've had enough issues w mods on this boart

improving the favorites functionality sounds good

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515685)

make this all opt-in on a thread by thread basis and hardly anybody will opt in, especially not for the classics that everybody liked

==> problem solved

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515773)

rach needs to have an opt-in to anonymization at the account level for sure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515835)

im just saying if we go the route of anonymization on any level, marking certain threads as classic solves that problem for those who are worried about the all-time boart classic threads being "ruined" by people wanting privacy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515893)

people who are still around and who are sensitive to privacy will opt-in, people who aren't won't, and old posters who have already scurried away because of privacy concerns have already gone pumo and/or blanked old posts, so we're not really providing much of a benefit to them anyways

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515599)

I just think people sometimes don't realize that there are weirdos out there who try to build Excel spreadsheets and unmask their identities. I'd like to diminish the risk of outing because sometimes it happens to people unexpectedly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515668)

Fortunately probably nobody cares enough to do it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515691)

Also, wouldn't it be nice to obviate the pumo?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515714)

that's my point, we already have a built-in anonymization tool for people who decide they don't want to be here anymore and who want to cover their tracks. anonymizing could be nice to provide the same benefit to people who still want to stick around without going pumo but then making it opt-in would do the job without stripping everyone of having their identities connected to past posts.

and again we wouldn't be providing much benefit to posters who have already left due to privacy concerns because they've already gone the pumo route, so making it a purely opt-in choice isn't harming anyone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515801)

make this all opt-in on a thread by thread basis and hardly anybody will opt in, especially not for the classics that everybody liked

==> problem solved

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515789)

There also needs to be a harsh crackdown on all posting, implying, or even known gathering of IRL info about anyone. Instant long-term or permanent ban, and/or publishing the offender’s IP (or more, if possible), plus whatever other means are or can be at your disposal.

Time to change the culture for the better around here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34515902)

I’m just not understanding what this all achieves that a poster’s own decision to blank out posts and/or go pumo doesn’t achieve

You’re on fire at the moment rach, 180 to you, but this particular change is not an improvement

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516023)

There have been some improvements lately, but people can just blank their own poasts/go pumo if need be (as I did when my future wife found my moniker and started googling my poasts). The main thing this feature will do is allow poasters to escape their own gapings, which should not be allowed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516120)

Twist: rach is Hebrew for great.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516103)

Recent favorite: "rebellious transparent cruise ship prole"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516138)

"chest-beating lascivious goyim"

"self-absorbed razzle-dazzle mental disorder lay"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516152)

IT IS GROWING STRONGER

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516169)

prole (that's gotta be there already)

depressive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34520907)

kink-friendly, federal, philosopher-king, roommate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3773143&forum_id=2#34516585)