Anonymous comments.

[Cyberpawz]

You know I don't mind comments, but if you don't have the balls (metaphorically speaking) to post your name when you comment, people should expect their comments to be deleted...

I don't tolerate anonymity when it comes to comments, even if they are good ones... that really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Weird Harold]

I don't tolerate anonymity when it comes to comments, even if they are good ones... that really rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not nearly obssessed with identity as you seem to be -- is a phoney name any more useful that no name at all?

I worry about content and relevance when it comes to feedback -- I'm noever going to know theperson's real name anyway, so a name is only imortant if I need it to reply to the content -- whichit isn't if I choose to reply instead of delete for irrelevance.

 

[Cyberpawz]

I'm not nearly obssessed with identity as you seem to be -- is a phoney name any more useful that no name at all?

I worry about content and relevance when it comes to feedback -- I'm noever going to know theperson's real name anyway, so a name is only imortant if I need it to reply to the content -- whichit isn't if I choose to reply instead of delete for irrelevance.

My issue is that I would take a person's suggestions more seriously if they had a name behind it because it not only meant they cared about the story, but also cared about the site as a whole, and decided to become part of it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I prefer to have a name attached to comments, even the nasty ones. I try to respond to them. At the same time, sometimes I find the anon. comments to be very ego-stroking and sometimes I find them to be amusing. Once in a while I know who has sent them, even though no name is given.

 

[sr71plt]

My issue is that I would take a person's suggestions more seriously if they had a name behind it because it not only meant they cared about the story, but also cared about the site as a whole, and decided to become part of it.

I've assumed that many of my negative commenters (of which there haven't been many, I'd acknowledge) do have a name account here and are active, at least in posting to the forum.

But I do agree with you that if they posted by the name they exist here under, they would very likely be more responsible/careful in what they posted, and there would be some context what they posted. This is exactly what some of them don't want to be present, though.

I think the best set up would be to require logging in (for both commenting and voting), but this isn't likely to happen. I'm just glad we're able to erase any comments we want to--and that Lit. takes the effort to sweep possibly malicious votes.

 

[Jeanx2storm]

anonimity

I understand that there are people who read stories on Lit. that can't share it with anyone and feel they must stay anonymous.

I wish that people could be more open about both sex. and Lit., but our society isn't there yet. So, comments from those anonymous souls are always welcome.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I understand that there are people who read stories on Lit. that can't share it with anyone and feel they must stay anonymous.

I wish that people could be more open about both sex. and Lit., but our society isn't there yet. So, comments from those anonymous souls are always welcome.

Most people are anonymous. I mean, my given name is not Boxlicker101, and most of us don't post here under our actual names.

 

[Weird Harold]

My issue is that I would take a person's suggestions more seriously if they had a name behind it because it not only meant they cared about the story, but also cared about the site as a whole, and decided to become part of it.

Why?

I don't ask for ID if somone tells me my shoe is untied or my pants are unzipped. Why does knowing who noticed that I misspelled abracadabra or that my dialogue is garbled and hard to follow matter?

If the comment is that my mother wears army boots or some other irrelevancy, why should it matter whose comment I'm deleting?

IMHO, rather than making it mandatory to log in and/or give an alias the Public Comment Function should be reconfigured to make it as difficult as possible to reveal your identity or alias when leaving a comment.

IF someone wants you to reply to a comment or know who left the comment, there are PMs and e-mail -- which are generally checked more often than public comments are anyway.

The only criteria for judging the worth of a public comment is it's content, unless the poster leaves his real name and contact information -- which happens to be one of the things Lit does not allow.

 

[sr71plt]

The only criteria for judging the worth of a public comment is it's content, unless the poster leaves his real name and contact information -- which happens to be one of the things Lit does not allow.

Oh, that is so not true, I'm afraid. And so off the beam in terms of assessing a statement--and it's why so many people suck into heavily biased media reports on events--and here on Lit., why they are so happy to listen to other posters who have no more or less expertise in giving advice as they had about writing when they wrote the piece.

The first criteria for judging the worth of a public comment (any public comment, not just one put on a story at Lit.) is judging the source of the comment--both their bias and their ability to make a meaningful comment. The content is of the comment is important, but it's just words without being put in the frame of the bias of the commenter and the commenter's ability to make a meaningful comment--and the commenter's agenda.

Unfortunately, you don't get true names on Lit., so you can't quickly and fully be able to figure out the bias and expertise of the commenter. But when the comment is given by a named someone with a track record of comments/posts at Lit. on the story board and/or forum, a discerning analyst can ballpark their bias and expertise--and then determine the validity of the comment.

Only way to do this with an anonymous poster is to pick out word use patterns over time.

 

[starrkers]

I rather like the concept of all comments being anonymous, with authors still having the option to remove comments.

Comments are sometimes used by people just to increase their familiarity with readers. So you get a bunch of "Nice job, well done" fluff that means nothing and achieves nothing.

If not for the authors' benefit, I don't really see what the point of comments are - the voting system gives any incoming reader an idea of whether the story is good bad or indifferent (well, it's supposed to). And the comments are at the end - does anyone ever read the comments first?

But critical comment of use to an author can be seen as jealous bashing by a reader. So other authors are somewhat loath to offer it with their names attached for fear of voting reprisals on their own stuff.

Therefore any critically useful comments are either kept to themselves, privately emailed or given anonymously. And we all know how well Anonymous is received.

But if you don't have comments activated, it looks like you don't care about your readers' opinions.

argh.

 

[Weird Harold]

Oh, that is so not true, I'm afraid. And so off the beam in terms of assessing a statement...

The first criteria for judging the worth of a public comment (any public comment, not just one put on a story at Lit.) is judging the source of the comment--both their bias and their ability to make a meaningful comment.

Nope, you're taking my assertion far beyond the context it was made in and changing the definition of "public comment" in the process.

My statement was specifically directed at "Public Comments on a Literotica Story," shortened to just "public comment" because in the context of this discussion, I didn't see any particular reason to waste the effor toto type out the whole phrase.

For a Public Comment On a Literotica Story (PCOALS) there is absolutley no need to identify the poster, becasue the PCOALS is either going to be relevant to the story or irrelevant to the story and the irrelevant PCOALS's get deleted and the relevant get considered on the merits of their content and degree of relevancy to the story.

How much bias can there be in, "GR8 stry. I cammed all ovr myslefs," or similar praise for a story?

 

[cloudy]

How much bias can there be in, "GR8 stry. I cammed all ovr myslefs," or similar praise for a story?

ah, the immortal: "I kiked in the dor and camed in her fas."

I miss Mathgirl.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

You know I don't mind comments, but if you don't have the balls (metaphorically speaking) to post your name when you comment, people should expect their comments to be deleted...

I don't tolerate anonymity when it comes to comments, even if they are good ones... that really rubs me the wrong way.

You have the option to turn feedback, and comments off.

 

[sr71plt]

Nope, you're taking my assertion far beyond the context it was made in and changing the definition of "public comment" in the process.

My statement was specifically directed at "Public Comments on a Literotica Story," shortened to just "public comment" because in the context of this discussion, I didn't see any particular reason to waste the effor toto type out the whole phrase.

For a Public Comment On a Literotica Story (PCOALS) there is absolutley no need to identify the poster, becasue the PCOALS is either going to be relevant to the story or irrelevant to the story and the irrelevant PCOALS's get deleted and the relevant get considered on the merits of their content and degree of relevancy to the story.

How much bias can there be in, "GR8 stry. I cammed all ovr myslefs," or similar praise for a story?

Sorry, but I don't see any other way to read the statement "The only criteria for judging the worth of a public comment is its content" than how I reacted to it. Whether applied to any public statement or a Lit. public comment, my response is the same as the one I gave. I think the source (which your statement doesn't allow for with it's "only criteria" sweeping generalization) is more important than the content of the comment--the comment is just words with no context otherwise.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nope, you're taking my assertion far beyond the context it was made in and changing the definition of "public comment" in the process.

My statement was specifically directed at "Public Comments on a Literotica Story," shortened to just "public comment" because in the context of this discussion, I didn't see any particular reason to waste the effor toto type out the whole phrase.

For a Public Comment On a Literotica Story (PCOALS) there is absolutley no need to identify the poster, becasue the PCOALS is either going to be relevant to the story or irrelevant to the story and the irrelevant PCOALS's get deleted and the relevant get considered on the merits of their content and degree of relevancy to the story.

How much bias can there be in, "GR8 stry. I cammed all ovr myslefs," or similar praise for a story?

Sr has a certain point, WH. I would treasure any praise from those who are recognized as being among the best authors on the site. The content is important too, of course, but so is the person who posted it.

Usually, if I send constructive criticism, I will send it in a PM or email.

 

[Weird Harold]

the comment is just words with no context otherwise.

A public comment attached to a specific story has no context? You have a strange definition of "context."

The story it is attached to is all the context a comment needs, just as the thread this post is attached to is 99% of the context it needs. (In threaded display mode, the fact that I replied to your is clearly indicated for those who need more "context.")

Would the meaning of my words change if I had logged in as my author's name instead of my forum name? would you bother to check and notice that "Dirty Old Man" is a non-existant being who "lives in the back of Weird Harold's head?"

The only "context" a public comment attached to a Literotica story needs is the fact that it is attached to a LIterotica story and canbe presumed to be about the story it is attached to. The content can be compared to the story it purports to be about and if the content bears some detectible relationship to the story, the author can evaluate the validity of the praise or criticism.

Where in that process does the "source" of the praise or criticism make one fucking bit of difference to whether it is valid or not. "You consistently misspelled Misspelled" could come from the Prince of Wales or from some bum wanking off over some library's keyboard and the spelling of misspelled in the story isn't going to change.

 

[Weird Harold]

If the source is important to you, then disable public comments and e-mail feedback and force any comments to be PM'd to you so that you have an ID to add the necessary spin or cachet to your feedback.

The Public Comments Attached to LIterotica Stories should be as totally anonymous as the votes are -- those who want you to know what they said or voted have other ways to let you know.

 

[starrkers]

If the source is important to you, then disable public comments and e-mail feedback and force any comments to be PM'd to you so that you have an ID to add the necessary spin or cachet to your feedback.

The Public Comments Attached to LIterotica Stories should be as totally anonymous as the votes are -- those who want you to know what they said or voted have other ways to let you know.

I totally agree.

 

[sr71plt]

A public comment attached to a specific story has no context? You have a strange definition of "context."

The story it is attached to is all the context a comment needs, just as the thread this post is attached to is 99% of the context it needs. (In threaded display mode, the fact that I replied to your is clearly indicated for those who need more "context.")

Would the meaning of my words change if I had logged in as my author's name instead of my forum name? would you bother to check and notice that "Dirty Old Man" is a non-existant being who "lives in the back of Weird Harold's head?"

The only "context" a public comment attached to a Literotica story needs is the fact that it is attached to a LIterotica story and canbe presumed to be about the story it is attached to. The content can be compared to the story it purports to be about and if the content bears some detectible relationship to the story, the author can evaluate the validity of the praise or criticism.

Where in that process does the "source" of the praise or criticism make one fucking bit of difference to whether it is valid or not. "You consistently misspelled Misspelled" could come from the Prince of Wales or from some bum wanking off over some library's keyboard and the spelling of misspelled in the story isn't going to change.

Sorry, I'll stick with the classic definitions of context in assessing a statement: who/what they are in combination with what they said and what they didn't say. Basic propaganda analysis.

None of it seems to have much relevance to this thread anymore, though. If you like the comment/think it's fair, keep it; if you don't, erase it.

 

[Weird Harold]

Sorry, I'll stick with the classic definitions of context in assessing a statement: who/what they are in combination with what they said and what they didn't say. Basic propaganda analysis.

None of it seems to have much relevance to this thread anymore, though. If you like the comment/think it's fair, keep it; if you don't, erase it.

Your comments haven't had much relevance to this thread from the start.

 

[sr71plt]

Your comments haven't had much relevance to this thread from the start.

Ah, that's rude. I didn't expect that from you.

 

[Weird Harold]

Ah, that's rude. I didn't expect that from you.

Rude? maybe...

Untrue? I notice you didn't complin about that.

 

[sr71plt]

Rude? maybe...

Untrue? I notice you didn't complin about that.

I didn't see the need to "complin" about it. My posting #5 was as responsive/relevant as anything you posted here. Not true? Or is your opinion the only valid one in a discussion?

I don't see anything I posted to you that would lead to your "any opinion but mine is garbage" rudeness. Again, surprised, as I hadn't seen that from you before.

I was disappointed that you didn't seem capable of absorbing basic media analysis technique--but I walked away from that when you didn't "get it." That element of the discussion seemed to be intruding on the thrust of the initial posting. And I'm happy to leave it to get back to the main discussion.

 

[Weird Harold]

I was disappointed that you didn't seem capable of absorbing basic media analysis technique--but I walked away from that when you didn't "get it."

What I "didn't get" was how "basic media analysis technique" was in any way relevant to the specific context of this thread about completely anonymous puclic comments on Literotica stories vs public comments on Literotica stories by anonymous aliases.

I do disagree with your wider premise, too, but that is irrelvant to this discussion.

I have asked several questions about the relevancy of your premise to the topic at hand -- questions that you have ignored to simply insit that even wider contextual consderations be considered; "Basic propaganda analysis," for example. What does "Basic propaganda analysis" have to do with public comments attched to a porn story on the internet?

Sorry, but I don't see any other way to read the statement "The only criteria for judging the worth of a public comment is its content" than how I reacted to it.

That's because you never considered the context and antecedents to "the term public comment" -- that statement was NOT made in a vacuum, but apparently because I made it -- the source IS more important than the content according to you -- you felt the need to ignore the context and make this some esoteric discussion about "propaganda analysis" and "basic media evaluation."

 

[sr71plt]

What I "didn't get" was how "basic media analysis technique" was in any way relevant to the specific context of this thread about completely anonymous puclic comments on Literotica stories vs public comments on Literotica stories by anonymous aliases.

I do disagree with your wider premise, too, but that is irrelvant to this discussion.

I have asked several questions about the relevancy of your premise to the topic at hand -- questions that you have ignored to simply insit that even wider contextual consderations be considered; "Basic propaganda analysis," for example. What does "Basic propaganda analysis" have to do with public comments attched to a porn story on the internet?


That's because you never considered the context and antecedents to "the term public comment" -- that statement was NOT made in a vacuum, but apparently because I made it -- the source IS more important than the content according to you -- you felt the need to ignore the context and make this some esoteric discussion about "propaganda analysis" and "basic media evaluation."

If you've asked "several times" what the relevance of my "the source matters to analyzing the usefulness of a public comment" comment, I've missed that. But then, I think the relevance is obvious to the question of whether commenters should be anonymous. Can't help it if you can't see the relevance of that.

Yes, I do believe the source of a comment is more important in the context of a comment than the words used in the comment--but I said the content of the comment was an important elment too. There are, of course, some basic truths in some statements/comments that don't rely on the source to be relevant ("your story was printed black on white background"), but few comments are reduced to that. Almost all contain opinion that flips them right back to the source of the comment being the most important element in determining the usefulness of the comment.

What set me in off in your comments here was your statement that the content is the ONLY variable, which is patently false. My response had nothing at all to do with you having said it--I've always found your comments good on the forum. They were addressed to the idiotic sweeping generalization you made.

Your rudeness was in stating that I hadn't made any relevant comment on the thread at all. I pointed out my #5 comment, which I believe (and said I believed) was as responsive and relevant to the topic of the thread as anything you posted to the topic of the thread.

You've ignored that--which I'll take to mean that you concede my point.

finished.