in reply to Re: Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
in thread No Anonymous Reply Option

    It's also a convenient way to reduce the number of orphaned accounts

Then how do you explain

  • 5068 - Users Never Logged in
  • 12846 - Logged In Once, No Write Ups
  • out of a possible 25763 total users. (i.e. more than half of the total users seem to be orphaned users..? In fact only 7849 users who have contributed..?)

    -----
    Of all the things I've lost in my life, its my mind I miss the most.
    • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

    Replies are listed 'Best First'.
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option
    by sauoq (Abbot) on Nov 24, 2003 at 06:11 UTC
      i.e. more than half of the total users seem to be orphaned users..?

      I said it was a convenient way to reduce the number of orphaned users, not eliminate them. I suspect that ratio would be much worse if Anonymonk didn't exist.

      -sauoq
      "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
      
        The suggestion was made to prevent posts of AM in *some* threads. Noone suggested AM can't *read* posts. The 17914 users mentioned by AcidHawk never posted - I fail to see how that number will increase if AM can't post in some threads.

        Abigail

          The 17914 users mentioned by AcidHawk never posted - I fail to see how that number will increase if AM can't post in some threads.

          I didn't say it would. I only suggested the number of orphaned accounts would increase. I suspect there would be a sharp increase in accounts with one post. Or accounts with just a few posts (often all in a single thread.)

          It'd be a paco epidemic.

          -sauoq
          "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";