2

I am talking about the usernames of the form user****** assigned by the system. They can be quite confusing when multiple users with usernames of that format participate in the comments. Yes, a member's username is his own business and no it's not the end of the world to spend a few extra seconds to check the names more carefully, but it's still somewhat annoying.

What I propose is to prevent reputation progress when the user reaches a score of 10, that's when he or she can create new wiki entries. A limit on 50 or 100 would work equally well as long as it gets done. Of course the pending reputation will be rewarded once the new name is set.

Another solution would be to reward a badge for it, as a new user I was going after them and I suspect many new users will (Jeff Atwood even wrote about it).

At this point I'm neither for nor against this system. Even to me it does sound a bit... well... authoritarian. What is your opinion?


Edit: This came up in the comments section of my answer in a question. The two other participants have now changed their aliases.

5
  • It's not really a feature request in the sense that I wasn't asking it to be implemented before having a discussion about it. Please do @PaŭloEbermann
    – rath
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 1:24
  • 6
    We do get a badge. Autobiographer is rewarded for completing all user profile fields, display name is one of them as far as I can tell. No point in yet another badge just for display name and blocking reputation is BAD idea anyway. Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 8:09
  • 2
    If someone wants to stay anonymous, why to deny him his reputation? Is his anonymity really bad?
    – Mołot
    Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 8:12
  • On Physics we have a 3k+ user named user1504 who constructively contributes to the site, but prefers to remain anon in the userXXXX format. Why force people to choose usernames just because you're having a hard time reading comment threads where two such users participate? (From what I've seen, on SO at least, this isn't common) Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 8:20
  • IMO this was closed a bit prematurely, as I think it contains some different ideas than the linked duplicate. @ShaWizDowArd 's comment is an excellent response and should have been an answer, instead. Commented Jul 10, 2013 at 11:14

0

Browse other questions tagged .