Who is typically most credible?
The hard-core pseudonymous poster with one handle (e.g. Arabesque)
0% (0 votes)
The soft-core pseudonymous poster, same handle since the mid-90s, real name pretty transparent (e.g. casseia)
31% (4 votes)
The "history of sockpuppet infestation" poster (e.g. YT/cosmos)
0% (0 votes)
The "one handle per site, real name widely known" poster (Adam Syed, Erik Larson)
0% (0 votes)
The Real Name™ poster (e.g. Jon Gold)
0% (0 votes)
The Real Name™ poster who also posts anonymously sometimes, in order to "teach the movement a lesson" (e.g. [redacted])
8% (1 vote)
Other
62% (8 votes)
Total votes: 13
»
- Login to post comments
Any more useful classifications?
I think I left some out.
well, i'm just not sure...
...which one I am. OK, actually I think I fall under the (blech) YT/Cosmos tent.
I was going to include one...
along the lines of "sockpuppet circus ringmaster" to make the distinction. Maybe jpass can give us an idea about whether the yt/cosmos thing at gnn had any apparent comic intent.
not from my perspective
no comic intent from my perspective. I was pretty much jaw dropped when I realized that certain users who supported my efforts were the same user.
I chose 'other'
Credibility has everything to do with what someone posts, not who they are or who they post as...
Ding ding ding!
Good answer!
exactly
I voted "other" also.
I agree absolutely that the content of someone's posts is paramount, regardless.
example
Who is an example of the category
The Real Name™ poster who also posts anonymously sometimes, in order to "teach the movement a lesson" (e.g. [redacted])
that would be...
[redacted]. Hope that clears things up! :)