There is an option for readers to hide names. It’s in the account preferences. The names don’t show up unless you roll over them. I use it, to supplement my long-cultivated habit of always trying to read the content before the author name on every site[1].
As for anonymous posts, I don’t agree with your blanket dismissal. I’ve seen them work against groupthink on some forums (while often at the same time increasing the number of low-value posts you have to wade through). Admittedly Less Wrong doesn’t seem to have too much of a groupthink problem[2]. Anyway, there could always be an option for readers to hide anonymous posts.
Actually I’m not sure I had to cultivate it. Back in the days of Usenet, I had to learn to actually ever look at poster’s names to begin with. I do not think that I am normal in this.
There is an option for readers to hide names. It’s in the account preferences. The names don’t show up unless you roll over them. I use it, to supplement my long-cultivated habit of always trying to read the content before the author name on every site[1].
As for anonymous posts, I don’t agree with your blanket dismissal. I’ve seen them work against groupthink on some forums (while often at the same time increasing the number of low-value posts you have to wade through). Admittedly Less Wrong doesn’t seem to have too much of a groupthink problem[2]. Anyway, there could always be an option for readers to hide anonymous posts.
Actually I’m not sure I had to cultivate it. Back in the days of Usenet, I had to learn to actually ever look at poster’s names to begin with. I do not think that I am normal in this.
… which actually surprises me because at least some people do seem to buy into the “karma” gamification.