Related comments here.

I wonder why not merge accounts with the same name and openID by default and, in the rare case where people don't want to do that while having the same name and openID (I really have a hard time imagining a useful case in that scenario) they can dissociate the accounts afterwards.

In fact, more than a feature-request this is a request for a reason why is this the current way. Easy enough to merge so better save the development effort?


I think it's a bad idea.

It is my account, and I don't want anything to happen to it without my consent.

I like the current solution: The system checks for related accounts and asks you if you want to associate them. One mouse click to confirm is not too much effort, and some people might want to keep their accounts unassociated. (They should have the option to do it, even though I can not imagine why they would want that. Customers...)


We could have actually the same account for SO, SF and SU, but that would require a change in the database structure if you want to keep seperate reputation scores, which I consider the sensible thing to do.

So it would require a lot more work than the current solution: Leave things as they were with only one site, and only add the functionality to associate the accounts.

  • Yes, I've edited the question (actually before reading your answer). More than a feature-request it is a query about the rationale behind the design – Vinko Vrsalovic Jul 22 '09 at 6:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .