Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Can we have something in place so that we can have a better idea if a namechanger is genuine?

87 replies

wannaBe · 26/02/2008 11:51

obviously wouldn't want to get rid of the namechange facility, but on other sites I've visited, when you click on someone's profile, it tells you when they joined the site, and how many board posts they've made. If we had this facility and someone namechanged, we could click on their profile and see if they're actually a regular, without being able to know who they are, but being able to have an idea whether they're a genuine namechanger who has posted regularly or someone who joined yesterday.

is this possible?

OP posts:
postingatlast · 26/02/2008 11:59

totally agree with wannaBe on this. Maybe we could have the info next to each post we make, as they do on most other forums. I.e. it could read:

Postingatlast
107 posts
Joined Jan 08

I think it would help poster's credibility and help maintain the integrity of the community...

I guess the only problem is the info contained could help people to work out who it relates to. i.e. if they know someone well, know they have posted over 1000 times and know when they joined, it could lead them to work out who it is.

Still think it is important to have some way of knowing the difference between a name changer and a newbie who is pretending to change names.

FAQ · 26/02/2008 12:01

even just the number of posts by that user (under all usernames) would be enough. Not sure date joined would really help - as I "joined" MN several years before I began posting....

Saturn74 · 26/02/2008 12:01

But then a new poster may be accused of being a troll just because they hadn't posted before.

LadyOfWaffle · 26/02/2008 12:01

The only problem is the person could be genuine etc. but it be their first post...

SoupDragon · 26/02/2008 12:02

This would make someone name changing for personal reasons identifiable.

The number of posts thing is horrible.

Also, it would change nothing. There have been several long-term trolls and several regulars trolling. It also would mean a newbie with a problem would be liable to being ignored or taken less seriously.

DualCycloneCod · 26/02/2008 12:02

they haev to mention the pouch of douglas

dustystar · 26/02/2008 12:02

I wouldn't want it next to each post. Maybe included as part of the search pages.

ComeOVeneer · 26/02/2008 12:04

It is a tricky one as others have said it makes people immediately suspicious of newbies. Plus number of posts doesn't actually mean that anything is "genuine".

ElfOnTheTopShelf · 26/02/2008 12:05

But I could then name change, and pull off a sick stunt, but would people be taken in by the fact it said

Elfonthetopshelf
1000 posts
Jointed Jan 05

Boco · 26/02/2008 12:05

But then, say someone has an experience of domestic violence and doesn't want to post under her name as her sister in law is a mnetter, but needs some support. If her profile says she joined in March 2005 and she has 1008 posts, she would probably worry about being identifiable from that information and not bother seeking the support.

I don't think that it's abused enough to warrant paranoia - just a bit of common sense.

Original poster
wannaBe · 26/02/2008 12:05

I wouldn't say next to the name, I would put it in the profile so that people could check if they wished to do so but wouldn't be forced to see it next to every post, iyswim?

I think a lot of people would read the threads first and check if suspicious.

OP posts:
FAQ · 26/02/2008 12:06

I'm sure if you could look back at the first posts of most MN'ers they wouldn't seem "trollish" and probably weren't regarded as trollish at the time either.

I think the reverse would happen actually - someone new posts on something and they'll probably actually be welcomed to MN.

I can't say I've ever seen the "number of posts" thing causing any great issues on any other forums.

DualCycloneCod · 26/02/2008 12:07

the thing is about all these thigns is that htey always become a drama wiht mumsntters gettign all hysterical and melodramatic on them

FAQ · 26/02/2008 12:07

I don't think the date joined is necessary - just number of posts available to view somewhere

DualCycloneCod · 26/02/2008 12:08

"i am praying for you my sweetheart stay strong xxxx"

VOMIT

dustystar · 26/02/2008 12:08

Good point Boco

I don't think it would help anyway really as as someone who is determind to Troll will find a way of doing it. I find that trolls usually get picked up on relatively quickly anyway.

Boco · 26/02/2008 12:08

I just don't think it proves or disproves anything - what difference would that actually make? A troll could be a newbie or a namechanger - you can register on mn years ago and just lurk - then come up with a story - number of posts or date of registering doesn't prove anything at all.

SoupDragon · 26/02/2008 12:09

Wherever it is it would make the poster's original name identifiable. I honestly fail to see any firm positives either TBH.

IIRC there have been very, very few "serious" trolls. Judge Flounce, that Fox woman (?can't remember name) and this one. Plus Lavenderrrrr I guess.

FAQ · 26/02/2008 12:09

OMG some MN'ers are just so stuck in the 90's with their way of thinking of how forums work

SoupDragon · 26/02/2008 12:10

If you're suspicious, simply ask MNHQ. They have access to this info and are in a position to do something based on the "evidence", there's no need to make it public.

FAQ · 26/02/2008 12:11

Soupy - it wouldn't have to make the poster's original name identifiable - unless you're boring enough to sit there and take note every day of how many posts all the 100's of regular MN'ers have tallied up by the end of each day - and then compare that with the number of posts that "Impretendingtobenewbutamactuallyatroll" has made (IN TOTAL under all their names).

Polgara2 · 26/02/2008 12:11

Sorry if I'm being thick but how could you identify someone by the number of posts? Am I missing something (am very hungry at the moment so brain may not be working properly - too preoccupied with thoughts of food).

Original poster
wannaBe · 26/02/2008 12:11

lol cod.

I dunnow dusty. what about the fox woman. she posted under two different names, two different situations and a mn'er met her in rl, held her baby while she packed to escape her violent husband, it went on for months. And the child modelling woman - people met her in rl, gave her pictures of their children to put up on her fake modelling website, and afterwards the police investigated claims that she was selling pictures to paedophiles, although no evidence was found apparently but she did disappear to brazille shortly afterward. That went on for months too iirc.

and judge flounce...

OP posts:
Polgara2 · 26/02/2008 12:12

Ah sorry took me too long to type!

Boco · 26/02/2008 12:12

Well someone well known who'd been around for years - posted more than most people - say Cod, joined in March 1982 and has 2174784883833 posts. If she name changed about a serious issue, and you checked her profile, you'd know that it was her!