On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:29:47 -0800, Ben Nolan <ben-tH0n/LiDeu9BWQWeTLFoew@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I guess I''ve decided that I have to support nicknames (login names) for > users, for nicer URLs and some spam protection - but I just thought I''d > say that it sucks, because I like using email addresses only. > > Any thoughts before I re-add a login field to my users table? :/I''m not sure what you''re complaining about -- you want to use login names in your URLs, but you don''t want to implement them in your code? -- One Guy With A Camera http://rbpark.ath.cx
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:29:47 -0800, Ben Nolan <ben-tH0n/LiDeu9BWQWeTLFoew@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Hi, > > I''m putting together a rails sites with multiple users. I want to be > able to refer to each user as: > > http://site.com/user/:username > > Which works fine - however, it has brought home to me the fact that only > identifying users by email address could be annoying (ie - having to > post your email address whenever you post a link to your home on the > site). But I want to promote transparency in the site and avoid > complexity - thus I designed the site using only the email address as a > user identifier. > > I guess I''ve decided that I have to support nicknames (login names) for > users, for nicer URLs and some spam protection - but I just thought I''d > say that it sucks, because I like using email addresses only. > > Any thoughts before I re-add a login field to my users table? :/You need justification? It is the right thing to do... email addresses change, so should be a seperate field. -- Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
>>I''m putting together a rails sites with multiple users. I want to be >>able to refer to each user as: >> >>http://site.com/user/:usernameYou could use the primary key of the table: http://site.com/user/1 ... http://site.com/user/2 and so on> You need justification? It is the right thing to do... > email addresses change, so should be a seperate field.Depending on your application, as long as they can update their email address you should have no problem. Everything associated with the user should be to their primary key in the table and not to their username/email/nickname etc. It could raise a problem if people were changing usernames to hide their identity, although there are some things that could be put in place: username/email history, limit changes to once per week,month, 2 months etc. Although if all your data is live, they really wouldnt be hiding themselves very well. As you are, I am also opposed to making a user have a username. Just one more thing to remember. Id like other peoples thoughts on this as well. Im all ears if someone thinks they have a good case that usernames are _really_ necessary.
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:08:35 -0800, Joe Noon <joey-ZEVs864fXHyI0AUCcRWsNg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> >>I''m putting together a rails sites with multiple users. I want to be > >>able to refer to each user as: > >> > >>http://site.com/user/:username > > You could use the primary key of the table: > http://site.com/user/1 ... http://site.com/user/2 and so on > > > You need justification? It is the right thing to do... > > email addresses change, so should be a seperate field. > > Depending on your application, as long as they can update their email > address you should have no problem. Everything associated with the user > should be to their primary key in the table and not to their > username/email/nickname etc. > > It could raise a problem if people were changing usernames to hide their > identity, although there are some things that could be put in place: > username/email history, limit changes to once per week,month, 2 months > etc. Although if all your data is live, they really wouldnt be hiding > themselves very well. > > As you are, I am also opposed to making a user have a username. Just > one more thing to remember. Id like other peoples thoughts on this as > well. Im all ears if someone thinks they have a good case that > usernames are _really_ necessary.Sure, good URLs don''t change: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html If you''re using the email address I can''t bookmark your ''homepage'' as it''ll stop working when you change your email.> _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Cheers Koz
* Michael Koziarski [2005-03-13 13:17]:> Sure, good URLs don''t change: > > http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html > > If you''re using the email address I can''t bookmark your ''homepage'' as > it''ll stop working when you change your email.Collision between ''user-friendly'' and permanence (also user-friendly ideally) isn''t it? /user/3456 is kind of ugly, but if you use a username rather than id# it has to be unchangeable (unless you want to handle multiple aliases or something that''s probably more trouble than it''s worth...) I think it would be site-dependent and a judgement call, based on expectation of permanence given the site''s content, the expected public reaction to ''permanent'' usernames (would people just keep signing up?), etc. -- ______________________________ toddgrimason*todd-AT-slack.net
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:45:37 -0500, Todd Grimason <todd-cwT7Wi5Y1r1eoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> * Michael Koziarski [2005-03-13 13:17]: > > > Sure, good URLs don''t change: > > > > http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI.html > > > > If you''re using the email address I can''t bookmark your ''homepage'' as > > it''ll stop working when you change your email. > > Collision between ''user-friendly'' and permanence (also user-friendly > ideally) isn''t it? > > /user/3456 is kind of ugly, but if you use a username rather than id# > it has to be unchangeable (unless you want to handle multiple aliases or > something that''s probably more trouble than it''s worth...)Yeah, you should probably keep id''s, but use them internally only (ie: for related tables). You could use them for URLs, but Todd''s right, they''re ugly.> I think it would be site-dependent and a judgement call, based on > expectation of permanence given the site''s content, the expected public > reaction to ''permanent'' usernames (would people just keep signing up?), > etc.There''s little you can do to avoid multiple signups, and email certainly isn''t the solution to that -- it''s not like I can''t get another email address. Personally, I like the ''friendly'' side username links. If I know how to view my own page, I can view any other username just by changing the url. It''s also a pretty common approach: http://rubyforge.org/users/agorilla/ -- Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
On Mar 13, 2005, at 7:08 AM, Joe Noon wrote:>> You need justification? It is the right thing to do... >> email addresses change, so should be a seperate field. > > As you are, I am also opposed to making a user have a username. Just > one more thing to remember. Id like other peoples thoughts on this as > well. Im all ears if someone thinks they have a good case that > usernames are _really_ necessary.I agree that emails shouldn''t be used in the url, use the username or number (username is prettier). However... you can still ask for their email, and either do logins by email or allow either username or email. Basically skips over the issue, benefits on both sides.
Hi, I''m putting together a rails sites with multiple users. I want to be able to refer to each user as: http://site.com/user/:username Which works fine - however, it has brought home to me the fact that only identifying users by email address could be annoying (ie - having to post your email address whenever you post a link to your home on the site). But I want to promote transparency in the site and avoid complexity - thus I designed the site using only the email address as a user identifier. I guess I''ve decided that I have to support nicknames (login names) for users, for nicer URLs and some spam protection - but I just thought I''d say that it sucks, because I like using email addresses only. Any thoughts before I re-add a login field to my users table? :/ Ben
Todd Grimason wrote:> /user/3456 is kind of ugly, but if you use a username rather > than id# it has to be unchangeable (unless you want to handle > multiple aliases or something that''s probably more trouble > than it''s worth...) > > I think it would be site-dependent and a judgement call, > based on expectation of permanence given the site''s content, > the expected public reaction to ''permanent'' usernames (would > people just keep signing up?), etc.If user A signs up with a username and is then allowed to change their username, another user could come along and choose the "abandoned" username. I don''t like the idea of anything that could lead to mistaken identity. Adelle.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:53:05 +1000, Adelle Hartley <adelle-JNHwCBCQwwtx3z9c7Zyw2w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Todd Grimason wrote: > > /user/3456 is kind of ugly, but if you use a username rather > > than id# it has to be unchangeable (unless you want to handle > > multiple aliases or something that''s probably more trouble > > than it''s worth...) > > > > I think it would be site-dependent and a judgement call, > > based on expectation of permanence given the site''s content, > > the expected public reaction to ''permanent'' usernames (would > > people just keep signing up?), etc. > > If user A signs up with a username and is then allowed to change their > username, another user could come along and choose the "abandoned" username. > > I don''t like the idea of anything that could lead to mistaken identity.Yep, I don''t believe in allowing changes in usernames, except in rare cases. Could solve that by either burning the username - flag it as deleted, but keep the record to avoid re-use, or allow aliasing - only admin can change username, and old record stays, with a pointer to the new one. -- Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
* Bill Guindon [2005-03-13 23:08]:> > I think it would be site-dependent and a judgement call, based on > > expectation of permanence given the site''s content, the expected public > > reaction to ''permanent'' usernames (would people just keep signing up?), > > etc. > > There''s little you can do to avoid multiple signups, and email > certainly isn''t the solution to that -- it''s not like I can''t get > another email address. >Sure - I guess I meant in general if you disallow something it will encourage people to adopt different tactics - which may or may not cause other issues, depending on the situation. I think usernames are actually one area where some constraints are expected by users and not unreasonable. -- ______________________________ toddgrimason*todd-AT-slack.net
3kru-hpyd-5+VhGm8TZF7QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
2005-Mar-14 05:31 UTC
Re: Email address vs Nickname?
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:29:47 -0800, Ben Nolan <ben-tH0n/LiDeu9BWQWeTLFoew@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I guess I''ve decided that I have to support nicknames (login names) for > users, for nicer URLs and some spam protection - but I just thought I''d > say that it sucks, because I like using email addresses only.I, on the other hand, hate websites that force me to use an email address as my login. You see, I don''t trust *any* website to not SPAM me, so I create disposable email addresses for each site that I sign up to. Having to lookup my list of disposable addresses every time I need to sign in to a particular site is a huge hassle, whereas I always stick to a single username for everything (no collisions so far). Email addresses change, can be extremely long, people may not like giving them out... the list goes on. Why force your users to do something they don''t want to do? --John
In article <4234CCEB.4080405-tH0n/LiDeu9BWQWeTLFoew@public.gmane.org>, ben- tH0n/LiDeu9BWQWeTLFoew-XMD5yJDbdMReXY1tMh2IBg@public.gmane.org says...> I''m putting together a rails sites with multiple users. I want to be > able to refer to each user as: > > http://site.com/user/:username > > Which works fine - however, it has brought home to me the fact that only > identifying users by email address could be annoying (ie - having to > post your email address whenever you post a link to your home on the > site). But I want to promote transparency in the site and avoid > complexity - thus I designed the site using only the email address as a > user identifier.Belated comment: E-Mail addresses can contain plus signs, percent signs, question marks, and forward slashes. Can your URLs? -- Jay Levitt | Wellesley, MA | I feel calm. I feel ready. I can only Faster: jay at jay dot fm | conclude that''s because I don''t have a http://www.jay.fm | full grasp of the situation. - Mark Adler