Guests

[Guest Guest]

Any chance of making the "Name" field a required field?

As things stand, it can be omitted and the guest will be identified as "Guest", which makes it hard to determine if subsequent posts are being made by the original poster (the OP) or someone else who won't take the time to identify himself.

[Guest Guest]

I understand your frustration to a degree. However, there's nothing to prevent a guest from using the name "Guest", and many who do use a "name" enter something that gives no indication of who they really are (ex. Frustrated in Ulster County), and could even reply to replies with a different name (ex. anonymous user) as though another poster and not the OP, even though they are. So I don't know if the gain would be truly of any value, you know?

[Guest Guest]

However, there's nothing to prevent a guest from using the name "Guest", and many who do use a "name" enter something that gives no indication of who they really are . . .

It doesn't matter who they "really" are -- and some seem fond of affecting such Dickensian monikers as Stackpole, Goldsworthy, and Mountcastle -- but it would be nice if they were the same person each time.

I have to think that most would be surprised to learn that [a] the Name field is optional and if left blank you're automatically identified as "Guest". Or "Guest_Guest". And I have to think that, if it were a required field, no one would suggest that it be optional.

[Guest Guest]

Well, it still doesn't prevent original poster Guest_John_Doe_* from posting a follow up as Guest_Joe_Schmoe_*, Guest_Margaret_Duffy_* and so on. Personally, I'd restrict all posting to members only, and run a purge on the members database eliminating all members who haven't posted in a specific time period (three/six months?) to clean out the deadwood (as in over 50% of the members here now). But that presents its own problems, and regardless, nothing will come from all of this anyway, as I'm sure you know.

[Gary Novosielski]

... and regardless, nothing will come from all of this anyway, as I'm sure you know.

Ohhhh, I don't know. I might decide to affect a more Dickensian moniker; that would be something.

[David A Foulkes]

Ohhhh, I don't know. I might decide to affect a more Dickensian moniker; that would be something.

Gary Something.... that would be easier to type anyway.

[Gary Novosielski]

Gary Something.... that would be easier to type anyway.

Not to mention mildly Dickensian.

[Gary c Tesser]

Guest_Guest said [post 3]:

It doesn't matter who they "really" are -- and some seem fond of affecting such Dickensian monikers as Stackpole, Goldsworthy, and Mountcastle -- but it would be nice if they were the same person each time.

I think it worth pointing out, if only for the record if there is one, to Guest_Guest that Stackpole, Goldsworthy, and Mountcastle are their real names, not affectations.

Edited for format.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I think it worth pointing out, if only for the record if there is one, to Guest_Guest that Stackpole, Goldsworthy, and Mountcastle are their real names, not affectations.

I find that hard to believe.

[J. J.]

Guest_Guest said [post 3]:

It doesn't matter who they "really" are -- and some seem fond of affecting such Dickensian monikers as Stackpole, Goldsworthy, and Mountcastle -- but it would be nice if they were the same person each time.

I think it worth pointing out, if only for the record if there is one, to Guest_Guest that Stackpole, Goldsworthy, and Mountcastle are their real names, not affectations.

Edited for format.

I am watching Good Times. Dyna-mite!