Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#81

Post by Hyena »

I still think that the most bothersome thing is that there are lots of people, especially in my generation, who grew up with the Internet and with identities tied to ancient AOL e-mail addresses, screen names, Usenet handles or MUD characters that are sometimes both more cherished and more important than their actual name.

What's odd is that my rule for social networks is that if you know my name online, I might want to connect with you. If you know my real name exclusively, I probably wish I didn't even know you.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#82

Post by JeffffreyF »

Everybody get over it, preventing anonominity and privacy (as each individual personally feels it), is a fools game. In the long run there will be no (as in absolute zero) acceptance of corporate need to determine appropriate levels of privacy. This is because people are not fools. Facebook is going down because they misunderstood how people feel about privacy, and a poor replacement (privacy wise) will meet the same fate. As the saying goes, you can fool some of the people some of the time yada-yada.... The shame is just in how much they leave on the table by trying to take to much, but nothing new, and on we go.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#83

Post by daemin »

nradov wrote: post #80
daemin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though what would be better and easier to fill out: (a) multiple text boxes with one for each important kind of name, (b) multiple text boxes together with some sort of code selection for each text box, or (c) a single text box that just says Name.

The usual solution is to provide users with a choice. Default to showing a simplified field or set of fields that suit the common case for that locale. And provide an "advanced mode" with more fields and options to handle unusual cases.

Well you could do that, but only if you must collect such information for governmental purposes, otherwise I would stick with just the single text box and allow them to put in whatever name they wanted.

I would especially do that for any sort of web startup for both simplicity of the interface and ease of implementation.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#84

Post by wnoise »

SeoxyS wrote: post #15

For the most part, I think that Google's crackdown on pseudonyms and anonymity is actually a good thing. In most cases, anonymity online brings out the worst of us—just look at 4chan, littered with mobs of minions proliferating senseless hacking and child pornography[1]. You need but look at the news lately to see the damages of unchecked anonymity: "LulzSec this," "Anonymous that" and so on. Enforcing real names is…

LulzSec are vandals and dicks. But Anonymous has done some good things as well...

> [1]: I have browsed thru /b/ many times, and the behavior of people there truly is the worst I've seen ever. I was in the middle of the SF Giants riots last year, and the people setting fire to cars and breaking windows seemed more civil by comparaison.

Seriously? Yeah, /b/ is a vile cesspool. But there is a real and significant difference between riots that directly affect people's safety and destroy physical artifacts and capital as opposed to information leaks and DDOS attacks.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#85

Post by nradov »

daemin wrote: post #83
nradov wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual solution is to provide users with a choice. Default to showing a simplified field or set of fields that suit the common case for that locale. And provide an "advanced mode" with more fields and options to handle unusual cases.

Well you could do that, but only if you must collect such information for governmental purposes, otherwise I would stick with just the single text box and allow them to put in whatever name they wanted. I would especially do that for any sort of web startup for both simplicity of the interface and ease of implementation.

It's not just for government purposes. If your hypothetical web startup has to integrate with any third-party systems (like anything in healthcare or financial services in the US) then you need the name broken into parts.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#86

Post by nitrogen »

SeoxyS wrote: post #16
FaceKicker wrote: post #11

As much as I understand the privacy concerns etc., am I the only one who REALLY hates being on Facebook and seeing a fake name with all sorts of odd punctuation and random capitalization in a list that consists otherwise of clean "Firstname Lastname"s? Even seeing "Equality" as someone's middle name bothers me to an extent. Maybe I have OCD, but I'm personally glad I don't have to see this on Google+ for now (but I w…

I totally agree. I can't stand people who put random crap in their Facebook names (and actually tend to unfriend them.) Similarly, I religiously give everybody on my IM buddy list their real name. I would go crazy if everyday I only saw pseudonyms and had no idea who was who.

Clearly you never used IRC. When I got started with computers, BBSes, etc., using your real name was considered a monumentally bad idea.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#87

Post by daemin »

nradov wrote: post #85
daemin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well you could do that, but only if you must collect such information for governmental purposes, otherwise I would stick with just the single text box and allow them to put in whatever name they wanted. I would especially do that for any sort of web startup for both simplicity of the interface and ease of implementation.

It's not just for government purposes. If your hypothetical web startup has to integrate with any third-party systems (like anything in healthcare or financial services in the US) then you need the name broken into parts.

Well I would consider that to be for government (mandated) purposes, since the service you're contacting with has a government mandated schema for the name it must use, and hence you must also use.

Of course you can always have different fields for billing information.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#88

Post by nitrogen »

SeoxyS wrote: post #41
bugsy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love to bring up 4chan as an example to this discussion every time, and yet there is no one on 4chan who has not freely chosen to be there. All this "know who you are talking to in order to have a friendly community" stuff is nonsense. We know why Google and Facebook and the Obama administration want this. Control and tracking. End of story.

It's not about what 4chan does to its members—I couldn't give less of a fuck. It's about what they do to the rest of society. Things like Anonymous and LulzSec, which end up on the NYTimes frontpage, are is a direct result of places like 4chan. Additionally, as a member of the Google+ community, I'm glad to see Google cares for its quality.

Things like Anonymous and LulzSec, which end up on the NYTimes frontpage, are is a direct result of places like 4chan.

I must disagree with this statement. If you believe that anonymous boards like 4chan provide a gathering place for the already antisocial, getting rid of 4chan doesn't get rid of the antisocial. They'll find some other way to gather and/or express their frustrations with society. I'd argue that it's possible that sites like 4chan provide an outlet for some people, preventing them from expressing their frustration "in real life."

For the record, I consider the real-name-only position you've advocated on this article to be a bit extreme (I believe I also replied to another of your comments). Feel free to desire a place, web site, etc. that satisfies every one of your whims and expectations, but don't do so in a way that forces others to conform. Maybe they see value to themselves and to society in the things you personally dislike.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#89

Post by tintin »

blauwbilgorgel wrote: post #13

Having a Dutch surname like "Spring in 't Veld" (roughly translates to "Jump in th' Field") causes all kinds of problems on form entries and editors that add smart quotes. - Many non-sanitized SQL queries fail, - buggy URL or HTML parsers create code like: /spring-in/ - Pagetitles like: Spring in /'t Veld - Added smart quotes "Spring in ’t Veld" from Word or Rich Text Editors cause problems with sorting and identity…

Your roughly translated HN name is also funny: Blue buttock gargle ;)

But yes. Programmers have a hard time using unicode. It's a shame not all programming languages use unicode.

I also think is has to do with bad research. It isn't hard to check different types of family names and naming order.

There are a lot of countries where they place the family name first followed by there personal name.

I'm still trying to figure the best way to store names. Maybe 2 fields will fit all:

  family_name (Spring in 't Veld)
  name (Robert Spring in 't Veld)
Family name can be used for grouping and sorting. But you need to store the name as the user entered it. Don't try to split it in parts, just leave it as is.

Re: When operating "at web scale", users often simply don't have "real names"

#90

Post by rmc »

gaius wrote: post #9
patio11 wrote: post #2

This title is 5 words longer than it could be, because people don't have real names. Apologies in advance for the self-citation: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-b... My name+ is confusing gibberish where I live. It is highly likely likely that when I have children, they will go through life having multiple sets of gibberish so that they can pick the non-gibberish option when asked "What is…

Well, I know people who IRL insist on being called by made-up names, mostly goths, you know, something like Darkraven Bloodmisery. Whatever they called themselves in Livejournal. Very few of them follow through tho' and fill in a deed poll form! For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name. And government IT - the least efficient kind! - has managed to solve this. Why can't the mig…

For me that's the acid test: whatever it says on your passport is your real name.

Here in Ireland we can translate our name in Irish and use that. I did that once for my passport. So I've had 2 different names on my passport without going to the deed poll, getting married, etc. all legally. What would be my 'real name' then?

(For the record the 2 string have a levenshtein distance of 10, so they are dissimmilar)

Post reply on HN