5 ms·

> how completely different people use completely different websites is frankly not your business. Likewise? This is not helpful. Some people want their pseudo

> how completely different people use completely different websites is frankly not your business. Likewise? This is not helpful. Some people want their pseudonym as 'main' handle, optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Other people want to use their real name and _keep other people out unless they comply_. I really don't get it how you can try to put it different while keeping a straight face.

philwelch 15y ago
optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Um, one of the primary use cases of a social network is to search for people you know in real life by their real names. Making that entire thing "optional" hinders that. If your primary use case is to use a pseudonym, the entire rest of the web is more or less set up for you that way already.
- darklajid 15y ago
  How can you state that as an absolute truth? For you (and maybe a lot of people, granted) the primary use case seems to be "Hey, let's search for that guy I know". For me it's not. I _still_ like to use these networks. Along the whole thread you failed to provide a single decent argument why other people need to use their real name except for "_I_ want to find them like that". Great. But this attitude is not what I'd consider social in the first place. If I'm darklajid on G+ or not, you don't see it. If your own friends in real life _want_ to connect with you in a social network, they better make sure that you can find them or write 'Puffy1982' on a napkin in that bar you meet and tell you to look them up using that pseudonym. Do you only meet people that give you their full name? You go out, and everyone in a pub introduces himself as 'Hi, my name is John Smith' so that you're able to find them on Facebook? Or is it rather like 'Hey, I'm Ben. Nice to meet you'. And - y'know what? I'm Benjamin according to my passport and you still don't have my last name. No way to find me with only that bits of information. So your use case falls apart for casual encounters, unless you already exchange explicit details. "Hey, can you add me on Facebook? You find me as ..." works with pseudonyms just that well. Don't say real names are easier to remember, write or pronounce or I have a huge pile of counter examples. Countering the last open point: If you want to (for example) find your old class mates from primary school by their real name, there are sites for that. They specialize on this particular need of yours. That is not a primary function of a social network in my personal opinion. Bottom line: Your use case is not universal, you can do whatever you like. Consider returning the favor to others.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    For you (and maybe a lot of people, granted) the primary use case seems to be "Hey, let's search for that guy I know". For me it's not. I _still_ like to use these networks. Well, those sites are obviously designed around that use case. So your use case falls apart for casual encounters, unless you already exchange explicit details. "Hey, can you add me on Facebook? You find me as ..." works with pseudonyms just that well. Personally, if I meet someone only once or twice and don't know their full name yet, I'm not going to add them as a friend on Facebook. That said, you can use contact information, partial names, your friends' friends lists, and recognizing someone's face in their profile picture as ways of narrowing someone down. If I meet you in real life, you're not going to introduce yourself as darkajid, you're going to introduce yourself as Ben. If you're listed on a social network as Benjamin Foo and you're already a couple degrees away from me, I can search for "Ben" and the search algorithm will most likely pop up "Benjamin Foo" with a recognizable photo of you. Outside of social networking sites, it's the predominant social norm to use a handle. Without pressuring or requiring people to use their real names, people by and large wouldn't use their real names and the sites wouldn't be usable. Countering the last open point: If you want to (for example) find your old class mates from primary school by their real name, there are sites for that. And they're slowly dying because no one wants to sign up for a single purpose site just to do that. They've been replaced by Facebook.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      Okay - we're obviously moving in circles here. - No, I don't agree that those sites are designed around your use case. You argue that way because you use it that way and it works. I use it differently and - it works. It's a social network, not a stalker heaven. - I don't even have a profile picture on Facebook. Your use case breaks again, although I do use my real name there, for now. Or should there be a rule for mandatory 'real images'? Maybe with some criteria about the exposed part of the face, the expression? Like on a passport in a variety of countries..? Oh, oh.. I know: I'm again breaking the usage here. Because the use of a profile picture (and a public one at that) is inherently important for social networks. - If people, as you say, use pseudonyms everywhere outside of social networks, why can't you find them based on those? You still failed to list _one_ sensible use case that is broken when people use whatever name they want for their account. Except for 'Hey, I remember this dude from college'. If someone wants to connect with you on Facebook they'll make sure that it's possible or give you the right handle. It's no 'right' on your side to find them by information you deem sufficient. And it certainly doesn't break the sites: They are about social circles, not phone books. The latter needs full names so that you can look up my number (if I want to be listed). The former is about a collection of people that connect and exchange over the internet. Those probably already call themselves 'Timmy', 'Bobby', 'Tom' whenever they hang out even if the names are 'Timothy', 'Bob' and 'Thomas' - and they don't need their last name. I cannot even comprehend (ignoring any agreement here..) your view of this issue. - If those sites have been replaced by Facebook, please - feel joy and glory because Facebook wants the same as you want and I couldn't care less about that site. Why exactly do you care about G+ doing the very same thing? You have your real name network on Facebook. Why don't you enjoy the place over there and let the more open minded among us try to talk some sense into Google?

philwelch 15y ago

optionally adding their real name _if they please_. That would solve the usecase further above. Um, one of the primary use cases of a social network is to search for people you know in real life by their real names. Making that entire thing "optional" hinders that. If your primary use case is to use a pseudonym, the entire rest of the web is more or less set up for you that way already.

darklajid 15y ago
How can you state that as an absolute truth? For you (and maybe a lot of people, granted) the primary use case seems to be "Hey, let's search for that guy I know". For me it's not. I _still_ like to use these networks. Along the whole thread you failed to provide a single decent argument why other people need to use their real name except for "_I_ want to find them like that". Great. But this attitude is not what I'd consider social in the first place. If I'm darklajid on G+ or not, you don't see it. If your own friends in real life _want_ to connect with you in a social network, they better make sure that you can find them or write 'Puffy1982' on a napkin in that bar you meet and tell you to look them up using that pseudonym. Do you only meet people that give you their full name? You go out, and everyone in a pub introduces himself as 'Hi, my name is John Smith' so that you're able to find them on Facebook? Or is it rather like 'Hey, I'm Ben. Nice to meet you'. And - y'know what? I'm Benjamin according to my passport and you still don't have my last name. No way to find me with only that bits of information. So your use case falls apart for casual encounters, unless you already exchange explicit details. "Hey, can you add me on Facebook? You find me as ..." works with pseudonyms just that well. Don't say real names are easier to remember, write or pronounce or I have a huge pile of counter examples. Countering the last open point: If you want to (for example) find your old class mates from primary school by their real name, there are sites for that. They specialize on this particular need of yours. That is not a primary function of a social network in my personal opinion. Bottom line: Your use case is not universal, you can do whatever you like. Consider returning the favor to others.
- philwelch 15y ago
  For you (and maybe a lot of people, granted) the primary use case seems to be "Hey, let's search for that guy I know". For me it's not. I _still_ like to use these networks. Well, those sites are obviously designed around that use case. So your use case falls apart for casual encounters, unless you already exchange explicit details. "Hey, can you add me on Facebook? You find me as ..." works with pseudonyms just that well. Personally, if I meet someone only once or twice and don't know their full name yet, I'm not going to add them as a friend on Facebook. That said, you can use contact information, partial names, your friends' friends lists, and recognizing someone's face in their profile picture as ways of narrowing someone down. If I meet you in real life, you're not going to introduce yourself as darkajid, you're going to introduce yourself as Ben. If you're listed on a social network as Benjamin Foo and you're already a couple degrees away from me, I can search for "Ben" and the search algorithm will most likely pop up "Benjamin Foo" with a recognizable photo of you. Outside of social networking sites, it's the predominant social norm to use a handle. Without pressuring or requiring people to use their real names, people by and large wouldn't use their real names and the sites wouldn't be usable. Countering the last open point: If you want to (for example) find your old class mates from primary school by their real name, there are sites for that. And they're slowly dying because no one wants to sign up for a single purpose site just to do that. They've been replaced by Facebook.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    Okay - we're obviously moving in circles here. - No, I don't agree that those sites are designed around your use case. You argue that way because you use it that way and it works. I use it differently and - it works. It's a social network, not a stalker heaven. - I don't even have a profile picture on Facebook. Your use case breaks again, although I do use my real name there, for now. Or should there be a rule for mandatory 'real images'? Maybe with some criteria about the exposed part of the face, the expression? Like on a passport in a variety of countries..? Oh, oh.. I know: I'm again breaking the usage here. Because the use of a profile picture (and a public one at that) is inherently important for social networks. - If people, as you say, use pseudonyms everywhere outside of social networks, why can't you find them based on those? You still failed to list _one_ sensible use case that is broken when people use whatever name they want for their account. Except for 'Hey, I remember this dude from college'. If someone wants to connect with you on Facebook they'll make sure that it's possible or give you the right handle. It's no 'right' on your side to find them by information you deem sufficient. And it certainly doesn't break the sites: They are about social circles, not phone books. The latter needs full names so that you can look up my number (if I want to be listed). The former is about a collection of people that connect and exchange over the internet. Those probably already call themselves 'Timmy', 'Bobby', 'Tom' whenever they hang out even if the names are 'Timothy', 'Bob' and 'Thomas' - and they don't need their last name. I cannot even comprehend (ignoring any agreement here..) your view of this issue. - If those sites have been replaced by Facebook, please - feel joy and glory because Facebook wants the same as you want and I couldn't care less about that site. Why exactly do you care about G+ doing the very same thing? You have your real name network on Facebook. Why don't you enjoy the place over there and let the more open minded among us try to talk some sense into Google?