61–70 of 152 posts
I bet it's tokenadult. I do not have any other proof than the fact that I immediately thought of that username when I saw onetimetoken. :-)
The word "token" is used in two completely different contexts, so I don't think that's right. EG: "tokenadult" = the included minority adult "onetimetoken" = account used once, like putting a disposable token into a machine
How about "martythemaniak"? Quote: > 1 point by onetimetoken 23 hours ago | link > I was just trying to empasize my point. Just out of curiosity, how would you go about identifying me? http://searchyc.com/empasize
Edit: ignore, just realised SearchYC doesn't respect "" and looks for near match words.
They seemed interested in the thread as to how they might be found, but don't seem to have given any permission for a site-wide (wo-)manhunt. (This might have happened out of band, though.) I guess they do say that they were just using a one time account for rhetorical emphasis.
Further, if this were to really be a contest, it seems like there should be some sort of rules, such that the result isn't determined just by exhaustion of currently in use usernames by guessers.
Sample size way, way too small
The sample is actually pretty huge considering the number of words.
http://ai.eller.arizona.edu/COPLINK/publications/CACM_From%2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know you failed?
That's a good one, another poster above suggested something similar. I believe that HN'ers would play fair in something like this. On the other hand that isn't proof of anything, but I think the changes are higher that someone will own up that didn't do it to throw sand in the eyes of the searchers than the reverse. But then again, maybe I'm a sucker and I believe that people in general are honest and trustworthy. So…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8404025.stm
Relies on a person's vocabulary and writing style more than the actual words.
[edit: disregard - I hadn't read deep enough to see that this was essentially the approach you had taken]
Obviously, everyone loves a good challenge, but is there any evidence that the find-ee wants to be found? They seemed interested in the thread as to how they might be found, but don't seem to have given any permission for a site-wide (wo-)manhunt. (This might have happened out of band, though.) I guess they do say that they were just using a one time account for rhetorical emphasis. Further, if this were to really be…
I just searched for "google-facebook" and "identity management" and saw a blog by the title "Google-Facebook: Identity Management in a Brave New Internet" Link: http://blogs.oracle.com/clayton/2008/05/googlefacebook_ident... But, don't know if Clayton Donley is on HN or not.. His Bio, at Oracle: Clayton Donley, Sr. Director, Development Currently run the dev organization for some of Oracle's security and identity man…
Didn't someone come up with a "Which HN User Are You Most Like" app a couple months back? I'm trying to find it now but no luck so far.
Simple psychology would lead me to guess that it is you Jacques. If I wanted to tell how easy it was to identify an anonymous comment, then I'd make one. I'd then publicise it, and challenge other people to crack it. Maybe I'm being too clever for my own good...
I solemnly swear it wasn't me, but I do agree with you that would be a good prank.
Assuming it's not you, we have another area of comparison that is being overlooked. Besides OTToken's text patterns we also have when the comments were left. So we can throw out certain people that never comment during the hours of the day that OTToken did.
Also OTToken is obviously familiar with HN and has an alternative account by his own implication. Likely he was reading/commenting on HN then decided to make the account. OTToken made multiple comments over two hours so we could also try and pick people who's comments adjoin that timeframe. Specifically people who made comments in advance of OTTokens comments, but not at the same time.
He can switch accounts to make alternative comments, but it's unlikely he was making comments from two separate accounts simultaneously.