Anonymous Posting

Anonymous Posting [Paid] 2.1.3

No permission to buy ($30.00)
Bought it now for testing purposes (and hope to get a refund if I have to experience it´s unsafe for anonymous use ;) ) and found the first 2 issues.

Two functional design issues:

On quickthread the anonymous function is missing (only available in extended editor mode)..
199893

..and this better should look like this:
199894


On quickreply the location of the function breaks the design:
199895

..and this better should look like this:
199896

I´ll post those issues only here, Truong, since there is a greater interest in this addon and people are following here. Trying to test this addons functionality the upcoming days and will post follow-ups, as soon I have found something.
 
Bought it now for testing purposes (and hope to get a refund if I have to experience it´s unsafe for anonymous use ;) ) and found the first 2 issues.

Two functional design issues:

On quickthread the anonymous function is missing (only available in extended editor mode)..
View attachment 199893

..and this better should look like this:
View attachment 199894


On quickreply the location of the function breaks the design:
View attachment 199895

..and this better should look like this:
View attachment 199896

I´ll post those issues only here, Truong, since there is a greater interest in this addon and people are following here. Trying to test this addons functionality the upcoming days and will post follow-ups, as soon I have found something.
I don't think support quick thread is great idea. As XF has limit the fields in here.

About the style. Does you confirm that style are work property in mobile? I guess not that why I do not put in that.
 
A critical design error:
when a usergroup has the permissions "[tl] Anonymous Posting: Can view " set to yes - like admins and moderators will have - and look at a originally anonymous post, they don´t see that it´s an anonymous post! Instead they see the real user and his real profile. If they now answer to that post, they most likely will use the original poster real name in the thread "Hello [username], .. " and will reveal the users identity with that. This has to be changed, else the whole add-on isn´t useable.

I´ld recommend to use the anonymous profile even for usergroups with the permission set to yes - but show them a link "Original author: [username]" as replacement for the "Guest"-usergroup in the profile block [the usergroup title is even incorrect, since the user is of course a member].
 
I don't think support quick thread is great idea. As XF has limit the fields in here.
I am convinced this is the #1 place, where the function has to be available, since this is the first place users will look for and expect it - or become aware of the function in the first place.

About the style. Does you confirm that style are work property in mobile? I guess not that why I do not put in that.
Regarding the checkbox "Post as anonymous" in portrait mode on my mobile, it seems to work. In landscape mode it doesn´t and the design is broken like shown in the screenshot. May be just add conditionals (media queries) to the locations of the link, to show the proper one for each display mode.
 
Beside the already posted critical error above, there are several other critical bugs which make me consider this add-on in the current state as unsafe to use, failing in the main tasks.

Using the native XF:
  1. Likes: all like-actions in threads from an author who uses the anon-function in this thread will be performed by the main user, revealing their real identity.
  2. when a user has posted with the anon-function, he is able to post with his primary real account in this thread. This will be abused to start flame-wars, for trolling, for answering/up or downvoting own posts/threads or simply to fool other members. This is the very last thing you wanna have in your forums! Users have to be forced to use the already - in this thread used for a reply/like/vote - used account automaticly for all other actions in this thread. If they have started with their primary account, there has to be a function to prevent that they are using the anon-function in this thread. If they start with the anon-function - vice versa - they can´t be allowed to use the primary account.
Using [TH] Question & Answers:
  1. Using "mark answer as best answer" while being the anonymous thread starter reveals your identity to the author of the best answer.
  2. Up or downvoting a post is performed by the primary account, not the anonymous one (same problem as #2 while using a native XF: the account has to be forced to be used automaticly, which was used already in the thread!)
Testing continues.
 
when a user has posted with the anon-function, he is able to post with his primary real account in this thread. This will be abused to start flame-wars, for trolling, for answering/up or downvoting own posts/threads or simply to fool other members.
Yes you're right. But our forum consider that a much welcome feature, not a bug 😄
 
when a user has posted with the anon-function, he is able to post with his primary real account in this thread.

That should be allowed in my opinion or a user could end up "conspicuously absent" and also indirectly reveal who they are. Flame wars should be dealt with by moderators, not precluded by the add-on code IMO.

However thank you for pointing out all the other issues with the add-on. Sounds like we have to keep waiting. :cry:

I wish someone would do it the way @xfrocks did with this one (we use a modified/fixed version of that one with our 1.5.x board).

Oh BTW here is our original wish list:

Maybe someone will do it!

Sure, if you created a user called "anonymous" and were able to post as that member then indeed it would show up as anonymous even using TapaTalk.

That is why I am of the opinion it is the only way to safely do an anonymous mod.

Yes, that is how @xfrocks did it with his 1.5 add-on (linked above).
 
Can this be for certain forums only? Like if i have a certain forum/thread where we want users to anon posts only
 
Yes you're right. But our forum consider that a much welcome feature, not a bug 😄
That should be allowed in my opinion or a user could end up "conspicuously absent" and also indirectly reveal who they are. Flame wars should be dealt with by moderators, not precluded by the add-on code IMO.

I can´t really think of a situation, where I wanna have prerequisites installed for supporting flame wars. May be in forums, which don´t depend on serious discussions. In mine this function would start them defenitly and moderators would have to bear with the loads of additional work to sort that out. I wouldn´t mind if this function could be turned off/on in the ACP, so everyone is happy - but by all means, there has to be an OFF-switch.

@truonglv ,
have you worked down any of the issues by now?
 
Edit: It's sorted!

Can someone give me a quick and dirty way to configure this for all users in only three nodes that are under the same parent?
 
Last edited:
Is there any chance this addon can make it so the admin can't even see who the anonymous user per thread actually is? As in, if the permission is not set, and then the permission to see is set, the admin can't look at past postings to see who it really was?

Thanks.
 
Is there any chance this addon can make it so the admin can't even see who the anonymous user per thread actually is? As in, if the permission is not set, and then the permission to see is set, the admin can't look at past postings to see who it really was?

Thanks.

All you have to do is change the settings in your admin user permissions to no (below). Then in the forum(s) you want admin to be able to use anon just change the same settings to yes.


1567166987223.webp
 
All you have to do is change the settings in your admin user permissions to no (below). Then in the forum(s) you want admin to be able to use anon just change the same settings to yes.


View attachment 209408
Thanks for the reply. So, for example, if I have "Can View" set to "No" for 12 months, and then I change it to "yes", will I - as an admin, be able to see the previous 12 months of posts linked to the actual user who posted it?

Thanks.
 
Thanks for the reply. So, for example, if I have "Can View" set to "No" for 12 months, and then I change it to "yes", will I - as an admin, be able to see the previous 12 months of posts linked to the actual user who posted it?

Thanks.

No. you'll just be able to see who posted it going forward.
 
Top Bottom