other ideas were - IDs reset after a certain time (not too long) - IDs get switched on automatically only in threads with a high PPM count - OP can switch IDs on

To add why IDs on all the time got complaints by non-shitposters, some of the threads that were civil and on topic got new off-topic shitposting fueled by the IDs. Something similar to these ideas as options to turn on per board would be useful tools for Board Owners if some posters (but not majority of them) can't behave themselves.

>>11344 >high PPM count maybe high p/id count instead?

>>11355 hm, this could fuck up the storytime threads or imagedump stuff

>>11360 well in either case you can come up with a scenario where there would be collateral. someone with access to thread stats would need to classify samefag nests and see if any correlation between them exists.

>>11368 i guess that could be a good "call" to moderation, a thread gets flagged when it has a high ip or ppm count, a mod can look at ips/posts and decide if they wanna turn it on/ban the spammer etc

The option to have some limited moderation over your own thread sounds nice, but it should definitely just be an OP option.

>>11344 >IDs reset after a certain time (not too long) That seems like the easiest option to implement. Like, literally just some randomly changing number in the backend boardwide that you add to whatever hash function creates the IDs and regenerates every x hours. Wouldn't that work? Second one seems nice but also kind of hard to implement. Being able to choose if a thread has IDs at thread creation would be nice but I think I've seen them mention that it's something they can (currently) do. A nice idea though.

>>11411 >that it's something they can (currently) do something they can't*

>>11411 >Wouldn't that work? if that would have worked this specific feature in the OP would not have been requested. even if resetting ids were the easiest option to implement, it doesnt address the pain points of having visible ids

>>11425 i think it would be a compromise between the anons who want ids and the ones who dont. i would always vote for no ids, but if we have them in a thread for idk 1-2 hours to prevent spam and obnoxious samefagging, i can live with that.

>>11435 in the post linked in the op and replies to those post, this expose-ID-by-vote was discussed to be the compromise enough for it to be suggested here. this thread is not about renegotiating a different compromise, that happens in the meta thread on /a/. this thread is to pitch the idea and see if the site owners find it worth the trouble so at least something definite can be brought back to the conversation even if its a "just go back to half-chan in two weeks if you dont like ids" response

>>11341 >>11344 Also >>>/a/33040 which probably is already here but I can't find it ITT or I'm blind.

>>11341 >>11457 And also: >>>/a/32841

>>11457 I brought it up in >>11377.

>>11341 How about global IDs get enabled instead and everyone stops bitching?

>>11341 i can't read japanese

>>11341 >Purpose is to help ID-shy users stay anonymous By ID shy you mean shitposters. If IDs keep them from posting then good.

>>11629 it's fun when some attention seeking faggot starts thinking he's hot shit because he's been active nonstop in a general thread that's one month old pro tip: it actually isn't the site is too slow to warrant thread IDs when things move fast then it'll be a good idea to identify samefags but right now when threads on average have less than 15 UIDs and a lifetime of two weeks it makes no sense

>>11634 >halfchanner waddles in andtries telling 8chan how it should run is site and form its culture

>>11642 yeah sorry I unironically should lurk more but an anonymous imageboard is supposed to be an anonymous imageboard imo not a forum reddit lite

>>11644 Nothing about you being 741bfa in this specific thread makes you not anonymous. This is something so many halfies struggle to understand. You're still more anonymous than both "normal" and ID-enabled boards on 4chan here no matter what, because you're allowed to use VPNs and TOR.

>>11647 I do not care about actual anonymity online, I wouldn't connect to the web if I really did. I care about anonymity within a community. When the poster size is big enough, I can discuss niche interests while hiding in the crowd without standing out. Thread IDs, the way "general" threads are encouraged actually hinder that in smaller imageboards and websites

>>11655 Nothing about IDs makes you "stand out". Make your own board that doesn't have IDs if it triggers your schizophrenia that much.

>>11341 Current IDs are better. Your suggestion is useless.

IDs only make you stand out if you're a shitposter already standing out taking a dump in a thread. At least attention whoring tripfags of old had the decency to allow others to filter them, but you can't even do that. So the IDs should stay.

>>11705 >>11712 Even if this feature is implemented, it doesn't change the setting of existing boards who will still stick with IDs on all the time. It will just be another option for board owners to use if they want it instead of always visible IDs or no IDs at all. Just like how making flags visible is a board option that can be turned on or off, it doesn't have to be used. Boards with IDs wont be affected by this.

>>11729 Even without that feature the debates are endless, adding that would just make the problem worse because people will use it as excuse to disable IDs. And as I said is useless because it's reactive not passive. In fact it would be detrimental.

>>11738 My point is that it only feeds the middle ground fallacy.

>>11457 I am hoping to have an implementation of this prepared for next week and then I'll bug Codexx about implementing it. I'm not going to go through the effort of creating a sandbox just to run a local instance of Lynxchan, so I may have to eventually collaborate with some folks on /t/. The system has grown to be a little more elaborate as I've started to factor in potential ways it could be abused since it relies on the back end frequently querying a thread's reply table. One such example is limiting the amount of reply ids that the front end can parse to avoid gratuitous querying on the back end and just revealing the poster anyways for being a mass replyfag.

>>11341 The way how IDs currently work makes it very easy to immediately identify samefags, your idea adds a unnecessary delay to identify samefagging.

>>12237 we should still have ID refresh once a day, which is something 2chan also does so people can't just stalk a poster's posts across days it would still stop this type of shitposting, while allowing more anonymity within threads.

>>12660 >we should still have ID refresh once a day, which is something 2chan also does so people can't just stalk a poster's posts across days >it would still stop this type of shitposting, while allowing more anonymity within threads. I absolutely agree. The OP should have been about this in the first place. Refreshing the IDs is simple and solves the problem of ID-shyness and Reddit-like post-stalking.

>>12660 >>12740 >solves the problem of ID-shyness I disagree. I would still have to self censor and be too shy to post again in the same day. The OP or auto-flagging of (Me) instead of IDs would be better compromise. If you like refreshing IDs so much make your own thread for it rather than hijacking this one. Refreshing IDs have always been the first thing suggested so obviously a thread like this is made is because refreshing IDs aren't an acceptable compromise.

>>13002 That would be the dream of samefaggers, just as bad as anons using screenshots as "proof", that's just a bad tool and you can't really understand what's happening.

>>13002 I fail to see how inviting people to turn threads into schizophrenic witch hunting generals could turn out well. Not only do you now know who the spammers are, but you even give them more attention.