Why do so many people hide their names here?

[Phil Deakins]

Judging by the posts in this thread, hiding the name isn't generally intentional - it's a "I like my graphic and I don't care that people don't know who writes my posts" attitude. This is a forum and that's not impressive.

[rotpaulette Carter]

It is just because of the finance inspectors and the police ,we never know!!!!:smileywink:

[Rhonda Huntress]

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Judging by the posts in this thread, hiding the name isn't generally intentional - it's a "

I like my graphic and I don't care that people don't know who writes my posts

" attitude. This is a forum and that's not impressive.

---

 

Really?  That's how you feel about their comments?

The impression I got was that people are using a feature so useful it even has its own sticky right at the top of this very forum.  You can't claim people are intentionally hiding from you because you keep your eyes closed.

[Phil Deakins]

 

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Judging by the posts in this thread, hiding the name isn't generally intentional - it's a "

I like my graphic and I don't care that people don't know who writes my posts

" attitude. This is a forum and that's not impressive.

---

 

Really?  That's how you feel about their comments?

The impression I got was that people are using a feature so useful it even has its own sticky right at the top of this very forum.  You can't claim people are intentionally hiding from you because you keep your eyes closed.

---

Yes I do. There's one coment, for instance, that says that people can look at her profile if they want to know who it is, and there are others that say that hiding the name wasn't intentional but they like the graphic so they leave their names unreadable. There are suggestion as to how to see names, of course, but they are neither here nor there. Those who have posted, whose names can't normally be seen, are happy enough to have it that way because they like their graphics. So yes, that's what I gather from this thread and I don't find it impressive in a forum.

 

[Rhonda Huntress]

/me shrugs

Some see the glass half full ... other see another dirty dish that needs to washed.

[Sigmund Leominster]

To be honest, until Phil mentioned it, it didn't even cross my mind that there was even the option to use the flaws in the way the badge is configured as a way to sneakily hode you identity. In RL, my software engineers tell me that the reason you have a Marketing Department is to sell bugs as "features." In this case, the inability to see names on certain graphics is a "bug," but rather than spend time fixing it, you get the marketing folks to say "And now you have the unique option to hide your identity from prying eyes with the new 'text blending' feature!'"

OK, so this won't wont' every time ("WIndows ® improved 'blue screen of death' automatically kicks in if your system in danger of being infected, thus making your data more secure!")  but as ever, it is all in the marketing.

And my name is Sigmund Leominster.

[Argus Collingwood]

Peeks in to see where my name is, waves to Phil then hits post:smileywink:

[Void Singer]

no we won't... not unless you can post in two colors at once (because I could read your name just fine in this wonderful blue goo)

 

@Phil:

I think you are heavily discounting the value of visual identity....

for instance, my own badge icon doesn't leave my name as the most readable (I've been meaning to update it actually), but the image is the same one I've used in two prvious incarnations of these forums... it's recognizable in a sort of instaneous way that my text name never will be.

you could say that my preference is identifying ME within the forum, over identifying my NAME in a forum... it's a bit like brand recognition, and consistency is key to that... this way people can attach a value to that easily recognizable image

 

not to say that I don't sympathize... I do. it can be overdone... for instance the tendency to over hype visual information by locking it into videos, where you can't easily skip over content that is irrelevant to you (whereas in text you have a fair overview and can skip the "noise"). but for building a consistent identity? picture trumps text pretty much every time.

[Phil Deakins]

I don't agree with you, Void, although I do understand your thinking. While some people may well recognise your graphic as being Void Singer, many or most people won't. For instance, I've known your name very well for a long time, and I recognise your graphic, but if I only saw the graphic, I couldn't put a name to it. And don't forget that many people who use the forum won't even recognise your name so they've no chance with just your graphic. Forums are text environments where names are the main way of knowing who is talking and who you are talking to. In RL it's faces but in forums it's text - names.

[Quinn Morani]

 

---

Pep wrote:

I sometimes wish I could hide my identity from the moderators.

Pep

---

 

Adding a vote for Cerise's Blue Goo theme, which adds a soft halo around the name making it visible against any badge background.

@Pep, the Blue Goo theme changes the background color of the forum, so I was able to see your white text with no special tricks.

[Void Singer]

but that's just my point phil... it doesn't matter what name is attached... because people associate the image with the content.... and who cares what my name is...

so that when they see the image again, any opinions, conclusions, or feelings about the previous content associated with the same image are automatically applied to the next post.... even if I change my name.

 

lemme give you an example... take the iconic red and white swirl of the Coca-Cola logo.... or their distinctive bottle shape... not only could nearly anyone you show it to name the product, but they also have an automatic reaction to it... like, dislike, thirst, a memory... that they otherwise would not have if you just said the name, or it was read in print. That's how brand recognition works...

human being are highly visually and aurally oriented, which is why a catchy tune can evoke the  same effects.

a name is only important if you want to identify the content to yourself; and requires a layer of abstraction. If you want to solidly link the qualities of the content, you do it visually...

for good or ill, the image tells the viewer that the content will come from a similar viewpoint as any of the previous content... you will likely have the same reaction to it, and it' will probably be of similar quality... and that sensation will come automatically.

 

I'm not saying everyone realizes that, even subconsciously. But I know I certainly do, and it's why I prioritized getting the familiar image up there, but haven't prioritized making the name more readable

[Darrius Gothly]

At the risk of breaking a rule ... 

... for illustrative purposes only of course.

[Phil Deakins]

I'm sorry, Void, but I just don't agree with your reasoning. Of course most people would recognise the Coca-Cola logo - it's known throughout the world - but images in forums aren't remembered as a brand icon in anything like the same way. I've known your name for years but I couldn't apply it to your image if I only saw the image. And don't forget that a *lot* of people haven't got used to your image (or name). Apart from that, how would the many people who either never got to know your name or can't relate it to the image (like me) address you? E.g. @the person who saud "whatever", or "I'm sorry, whoever you are, but ..." Also, how can someone find a person inworld if they only have an image to go by?

Whilst I understand your thinking, I don't agree that it holds up. By all means, create or keep the "brand" that's associated with the image, but please make it clear who you are as well. I think that most people would prefer to see your posts and attribute them to "Void Singer" than to "the person with a particular image" . The Coca-Cola logo is recognisable throughout the world BUT it's attributed to Coca-Cola - a name, not an image.

[Void Singer]

ya do know there is a very underused quote button, right?

and had you considered perhaps I (or others) might not care to be found inworld for all the unpopular opinions we voice here, or to have OUR time we assign to work or enjoyment interupted?

 

I also have another ulterior motive... I would the message (whatever it happened to be) to stand on it's own as much as possible, separate from the person saying them.... because I don't have the same focus inworld, or in person as I do on this forum. yes, still me, but a differnt part of me

 

PS
but like I said, I do plan to tweak it, just a matter of priorities

[Phil Deakins]

Quotes fill space, often unnecessarily I only use them when there are other posts between the one I'm responding to and my response.

Those who prefer not be found inworld usually use alts in the forum. Anyone not using an alt can be found inworld.

 

[Dresden Ceriano]

The problem is not that people are using pics that are too dark for their badges. It's that they have to use the badges to get a decent sized avatar, since the default avatar size is microscopic. It's a work-around and maybe it doesn't work that well. But there are other work-arounds you can use to see people's names even on a dark background. A couple have been mentioned here already.

The simple solution has to come from LL... the ability to change the color of your name. Maybe someone who is more concerned about it than I will file a jira about it (hint hint). Since this discussion is taking place here, instead of in, say, the community feedback section, it's likely doing us no good toward solving the problem.

Surely, LL have better things to do than rummage through the lowly off-topic forum. Made obvious by the fact that posts here don't add to your count. Not that post count is a big deal to me, but it does seem to send out the message that, in LL's eyes, this section adds nothing substantive to the community.

Well, now that I've gone way off topic...

...Dres

[Dogboat Taurog]

 

---

Pep wrote:

@Quinn: **bleep** you Bloo Goo!

Pep (has a feeling everyone except Dogboat recognises his posts anyway.)

---

Dogboat (wonders why anyone would hide behind somebody else's name...)

 

PS, especially when they aren't particularly good at impersonation...

[Kidd Krasner]

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

I think you are heavily discounting the value of visual identity....

for instance, my own badge icon doesn't leave my name as the most readable (I've been meaning to update it actually), but the image is the same one I've used in two prvious incarnations of these forums... it's recognizable in a sort of instaneous way that my text name never will be.

you could say that my preference is identifying ME within the forum, over identifying my NAME in a forum... it's a bit like brand recognition, and consistency is key to that... this way people can attach a value to that easily recognizable image

not to say that I don't sympathize... I do. it can be overdone... for instance the tendency to over hype visual information by locking it into videos, where you can't easily skip over content that is irrelevant to you (whereas in text you have a fair overview and can skip the "noise"). but for building a consistent identity? picture trumps text pretty much every time.

---

Not only can it be overdone, but for many people, it simply doesn't work that way.  Hence one of the first things I did with the new forums was to disable the images entirely.

First, most images like the visual distinctiveness to be memorable.  You've seen one SL picture, you've seen them all (almost). Most of them can be pigeonholed into face|3/4|scene, male|female|couple, left|right|center, and a main color.  I'll admit to being far more text oriented than picture oriented, which may put me in the minority, but I'm sure I'm not alone.

Second, the pictures and names are out of band from the text.  I won't claim to know how focus and periphery work for other people, but I know how it works for me:  When I read the text, the picture and name are both out of my focus, and I simply don't make any connection; they're just blurs.  With a bunch of short posts, so that multiple pictures appear on the screen, I'm not sure I could even identify, after the fact, which picture belongs to which post.  When I'm reading, I'm focused on the text, trying hard to filter the visual distraction of the pictures.  (My ADD is triggered visually far more than the audible distractions that most people expect.)  If I'm looking at the picture, I have no clue as to what the post is about.  It takes concerted effort for me to associate either a name or a picture with a post - so I just don't do it.

Third, I simply don't want the information.  With rare exception, usually on extended discussions, I don't need to know the author of a post to understand, interpret, or evaluate it.  Indeed, in spite of my preferences, there are contributors whose names and reputations are burned into me, often in negative ways, and if happen to notice their name on a post, I have to remind myself to read it fairly. 

 

[Void Singer]

 

---

Kidd Krasner wrote:

 [...] With rare exception, usually on extended discussions, I don't need to know the author of a post to understand, interpret, or evaluate it.  Indeed, in spite of my preferences, there are contributors whose names and reputations are burned into me, often in negative ways, and if happen to notice their name on a post, I have to remind myself to read it fairly. 

---

::grins:: you are not alone. I also don't care who says what, but rather what was actually said.... although there are a few that I will ID and skip based on the past knowledge that the person has never contributed anything of value (IMO) and often is inflammatory or nonsensical.

 

PS
I also have ADD triggers... although mine is "change"... patterned items are easy enough to deal with, one I've gotten through 2 cycles, as long as they're continuous... disjointed or randomly changing sights/sounds/smells I have to avoid if I hope to focus.... so I tend to blacklist people's images that use those features, just as you turn of images altogether. it has me me pretty good at pulling patterns out of things though.