Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

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.";

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: No Anonymous Reply Option by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Nov 24, 2003 at 10:18 UTC
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	[reply]
Re: Re: No Anonymous Reply Option by sauoq (Abbot) on Nov 24, 2003 at 12:10 UTC
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.";	[reply]


Keep It Simple, Stupid
	PerlMonks