chrisg
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 01:49 PM |
|
|
Keyboard Warriors
Funny place the internet.
The lack of the subtleties of tone and body language mean that sometimes innocent remarks are taken as insults - it's happened here.
But there are some people who are, or seem to be, determined to cause trouble.
I've been doing a little study about this for my new college course.
Using a football forum as a model because
a. There are lots of people on it
and
b. Opinions tend to be more forcefully expressed.
I monitored the site for 6 months, logging disagreements, arguments and downright shouting matches.
The results are quite illuminating.
Of the 316 incidents, one poster could be assessed as the aggressor, either in language, controversial view, or criticism/unfounded claims in 224
cases.
These cases featured 189 forum members, accounted for by certain member appearing more that once.
Of these 189 members 182 used anonymous type user names.
182 out of 189.
The others either had a full name or a Christian name/initial.
So what does that tell us? It would seem that the biggest trouble makers use a pseudonym.
There are many reasons for using a pseudonym, and I’m not suggesting that everyone who uses one is a trouble maker. I think it may be cause and
effect – the anonymity gives the poster a feeling of invulnerability. A bravery that they would not have except for their anonymity. This means that
they will use insults and make unsubstantiated claims because they think they are “safe”.
Most people use several forums and I’d appreciate your feedback as to whether you think this theory holds true, either here or in other forums.
Much Appreciated
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 01:53 PM |
|
|
Theory? I would have thought that it was almost, but maybe not quite, self evident fact that the anonymity promotes aggravation.
Similar to on the road behaviour, people do stuff they would bever dream of doing as pedestrians on the pavement
John
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 01:56 PM |
|
|
I've been told I'm "Reading too much into it", but I think it's valid, it was a long survey and the results are pretty
clear.
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:07 PM |
|
|
hmmm na 
see you have to think about the bigger picture…
folk outsides the forum could do a very simple search and locate posts done by anyone who uses their name or even part of it
when I worked at shell, they did searches on the web for potential job applicants, quite funny the stuff we use to pull up, having pub crawls, pi$$
ups and being arrested sprawled all over the web in glorious colors is not the greatest thing for future (on not so) employers to see... not to
mention the topless table dancing 
as for this site, the type of persons you refer too were hardly unknown anonymous posters, we all know fine well who everyone is
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
i think its very very rare for anyone to use their real full name on any forum. have a look the the picture archive thing, and in this case, its
probably about half and half (just looking through the A's for example)
of those using names, its usually first name and initial of surname (blakep, chrisg etc)
I would actually say its more coincidence. maybe more a case that forums in general have this effect (because its not face to face) and the names
people use is kind of standard on forums. not sure there's a great link myself. er, you w*nker
*i'm joking!
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:11 PM |
|
|
In our field of work as "private" fraud investigators we work on about a 60% success rate in finding out who a forum user name really
belongs to. That's without using any specialist IT tools and working similar to how Mr W described above. The rate amongst those under 30 is
much higher (about 80%) but us oldies bring the average down.
So as much as people think it's anonymous - it's usually not.
|
|
|
chrsgrain
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:14 PM |
|
|
Correlation does not imply causation here I'm afraid - just because the people making the comments were anonymous doesn't mean they made
the comments because they were anonymous... or vice versa.
In order to assess this, you should see what proportion of user names on said forum were anonymous, as a proportion of all users (try to control for
posting frequency) and then see if there is a difference in proportion in the 'offensive' posts. That would help to give some force to
your argument that the anonymity leads to offensive posting....
eg: 90% of offensive postings were made by anonymous posters, whilst only 45% of a random selection of control postings (n=xx, P<0.05)
(unpaired T testing, or Mann-Whitney U test (if not assuming normality) would be good statistical tests)
Chris
[Edited on 27/10/08 by chrsgrain]
[Edited on 27/10/08 by chrsgrain]
Spoing! - the sound of an irony meter breaking...
|
|
|
loggyboy
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:15 PM |
|
|
Theres a great cover for your college work:
Mistral Motorsport
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:37 PM |
|
|
why not to use things like facebook...
be anonymous & keep your job
might not be totally worksafe
linky
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Richard Quinn
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 02:51 PM |
|
|
Explains why I am so mild mannered and not contraversial at all!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 03:11 PM |
|
|
Many football supporters verge on being tribal, so the fact there is animosity / aggression on those sites doesn't surprise me in the
slightest.
Take a look at the Football365 Forum and contrast it with the PlanetF1 Forum. Both run by the same group, but VERY different rules of posting, types
of user and levels of self-moderating acceptability! The Football365 Forum is littered with aggression, porn, foul language, racism, etc. The
PlanetF1 Forum has a more 'sarcastic' feel to it, geekery and compliance. Hell, during the Max Mosely saga, the word 'nazi'
was censored!
One forum that I found very interesting as a 'social study' was the SELOC (Lotus) forum. It had it's good guys, it's cheeky
guys, and it's bullies. Unfortunately, when I was last a member, the number of bullies (interestingly in one communicative group) turned the
place into a cess-pit and forced many decent spuds out with their bile. One of the main protagonists ( a truly revolting character) gave his full
name in his 'profile' and linked it to his company (of which he was a director) that boasted of dealing with many 'blue-chip'
organisations. I often wondered what these trading partners would have thought had they been pointed in the direction of some of his internet
musings?
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 03:57 PM |
|
|
Thanks chaps!
Chris
I've got some figures on the forum.
Active posters in 6 months - 987
58% of these posters have a completely anonymous username.
Percentage of offensive posts (by my own rules) in general posting (whole forum)over 13765 posts is 4%.
Percentage of that 4% posts by anonymous posters - 79%
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 05:13 PM |
|
|
chrisg,
Can I ask what defines a 'completely anonymous user name' please?
What I am questioning here is, where there is a facility for creating multiple sign-ins, which one (or more) would you, for instance, define as
anonymous and why?
1. Fozzie...(a name derived from my surname which I have had since knee high to grasshopper, and of which my brother also had at school)
2. Fred Bowen... a name, completely made up, but a proper name nonetheless
3. CYF......totally meaningless to everyone, but real as it is a persons initials.
Or do you clarify anonymous as in their profiles devoid of all info ie blank, and not known to admin,
Or just because the 'name' is meaningless to you, but not particularly to their peers in their locality........?
Just interested to know.......I mean, just because you have signed up as chrisg, for all I know you could be Fifi LeBlanc in 'real life'
.........
Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 05:32 PM |
|
|
Real names / psuedonyms.
There are many people who I know now in that other universe known as 'real life' who I first encountered in here.
Several use my real name now, others have stuck with the shortened version of the psuedonym as often seen in here.
Go figure as they say in the western colonies.
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
This was the criterion I used. It wasn't easy. The major fault is of course honesty on sign up, but I couldn't do anything about this. I
worked on the theory that an equal number of posters from each group (real name/anonymous)would be honest. I had no option.
First sort - People with obvious non names, eg "ytuyty, 34545" into group one.
People with apparent real names who signed their posts - tentatively into group two for observation.
Second sort - profile search for real name information in group two. confirmation in profile - into group three.
Nicknames - obvious correlation with real name in sort two - into group three.
Double identification, for example user "Bluebear" identified by social contacts as "Dave" Treated as anonymous, on the basis
that their initial sign in was not in their real name - into group one.
Multiple identities - apparent real names, treated as real names but obvious alter egos discounted.
Multiple identities - no apparent name amongst them, treated as anonymous, where possible alter egos identified and discounted.
I observed the posts over the entire period to try to place posters in the correct group via peer identification and annecdote - some people give away
quite a lot about themselves in forums.
Any posters not placed in group one or three by the end of the survey discounted.
Phew!!
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
chrsgrain
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 05:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
Active posters in 6 months - 987
58% of these posters have a completely anonymous username.
Percentage of offensive posts (by my own rules) in general posting (whole forum)over 13765 posts is 4%.
Percentage of that 4% posts by anonymous posters - 79%
OK - that's good - what you could do with is an assessment of a random selection of posts and see the proportion of persons posting who were
anonymous (this will remove any bias that those who register with proper names, don't post very often - it may not seem likely, but it is a
factor to be excluded - at the moment you are assuming equal posting frequency from all those 987 members)
You can then use your numbers to run some simple statistics, which may well 'prove' your point.
Problem still exists of interpretation, does the anonymous user name lead to posting offensively (ie does everyone join the forum equal and then their
behaviour is altered by their user name), or is the sort of person who uses an anyonymous name more likely to offend (ie the groups which posts
anonymously and offends is self selecting - in which case you are using a surrogate marker of offensiveness, rather than measuring a change in
behaviour caused by the presence of anonymity)
I think
Chris
Spoing! - the sound of an irony meter breaking...
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 06:01 PM |
|
|
Thanks Chris,
Would it be valid to take a random sample of posts now, as it's outside the survey period?
I might be able to do it using a search in the archives but there are only three months records - the forum in question ran into legal trouble and
removed thousands of posts.
There are obviously too many variables to insist upon a complete proof of my theory, but I'd like to get all my ducks in a row before I hand it
in!
Cheers
Chris
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
chrsgrain
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 06:07 PM |
|
|
Obviously in an ideal world would have been better to get it at the time, but now would give you an indication - the important thing is to be honest
about the data - just say that the random posts were measured after the others - risk is that the pattern of posting has changed over time - in your
discussion you'll then need to make an argument as to whether or not you think that is likely, and how you might, in future work, go about
demonstrating that change.... nothing is ever finished!
Once you've got that data (say 50% of random posts are posted anonymouslyf in a sample of 100 posts) you can statisticsally compare the obscene
posts and the random posts to se if any difference is likely to have occurred by chance, the routine statistical standard is 5% - so if there is a
chance that it would have occurred by chance only in less than 5% of samples, then it is said to be statistically significant.
Hope that helps - if you need a hand with the stats let me know.
Chris
Spoing! - the sound of an irony meter breaking...
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 06:18 PM |
|
|
Thanks for that chrisg
All good interesting stuff......and chrisgrains too!
Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 06:31 PM |
|
|
Thanks Chris!
Cheers
Fifi LeBlanc
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
Rob Palin
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 07:26 PM |
|
|
I try to only ever say things on forums that I would be quite happy to say face-to-face, and I can see how it would make sense that I also
wouldn't mind using my real name as my username.
Keyboard warriors really do bug me, as do the people mentioned earlier in the thread who behave in their cars in ways they would never dare to outside
of them.
I don't know if it would be of any use in this study, but a quick look through the comments to just about any posting on Youtube will reveal
numerous keyboard warriors and generally people with quite significant attitude problems, IMHO. I don't think I've seen a single page
without some sort of unjustified vitriol on it. I'm not exactly an old fart (yet) but I do wonder what's going wrong with the world these
days. 
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
I made the decision to use my real name in all the forums (fora?) I visit - it's my name, I'm proud of it, and I stand by what I write.
Saying that, I did use an alternative name in the Haynes forum - but it's not too hard to work out who is behind that name! (jerkins). Later on
I wished that I'd stuck to my real name in the end.
Not that I'm criticising those who use pseudonyms - it's a personal choice.
[Edited on 27/10/08 by David Jenkins]
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 27/10/08 at 08:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
Thanks Chris!
Cheers
Fifi LeBlanc
There ya go! I just knew it!
ATB Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
chrisg
|
| posted on 28/10/08 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
I thought you'd like that one Fozzie!
Cheers
Fifi
Note to all: I really don't know when to leave well alone. I tried to get clever with the mods, then when they gave me a lifeline to see the
error of my ways, I tried to incite more trouble via u2u. So now I'm banned, never to return again. They should have done it years ago!
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 28/10/08 at 02:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chrisg
I thought you'd like that one Fozzie!
Cheers
Fifi
I most surely did Fifi 
Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
