The UAFC

Not many people know about it, but one of our number seems to have knowledge that most of you do not have.

It is a little known fact regarding pHp forums that those with less than three characters in their username can avoid detection by the author search facility.

BR is avoiding detection by this method on this MB.

What is the solution? uafcadmin should know.

Is it to ban users with less than three characters in their username? (No puns about multiple identities please.)

This is a serious issue. It goes to the core of access to information and non-discrimination.

Is it to re-write the software to ensure that such discriminatory loopholes no longer exist?

Or, do we all adopt usernames with less than three characters? Not many users in that solution as the anaroks among you would know.

All answers are appreciated and may be replied to. Well that's the idea of this particular forum isn't it?

What are you on about?!

What do you mean 'avoiding detection'?

As you are Donald Ducked, I will use your username to explain further.

If you do a “Keywords” search for Donald Ducked (select “any terms” also “Posts” in the check circles), the result lists all posts where either Donald or Ducked (or both) occurs in the text of posts.

If you do an “Author” search for Donald Ducked (select “Posts” in the check circle), the result lists all posts where you were the author. Going to your profile and doing a “Find all posts by Donald Ducked” gives the same result as this.

If you carry out exactly the same searches but look for BR, no results are found even though BR has both posted and been referred to by others. That is what I mean by “avoid detection”.

This means you cannot investigate BR posts or references in the way you can others on these MB's.

Does that assist?

It does - thank you!

Now that I think I understand the issue my next question is....

What does it matter?!

Are you saying that BR chose his/her username so that we couldn't quickly identify all of his/her posts?

As even if he/she did, so what?

Couldn't it just be coincidence anyway?

It could be coincidence Donald. (Mr Ducked seems too formal)

This MB has excellent search facilities, which I know I will find useful. The value of the facility is however devalued by allowing usernames which cannot be detected by the search facilities.

I think that we can assume that anything I have written is of little or no interest in the present, let alone in the future.

Cables implication that people being unable to research my previous contributions is in some way to my advantage is a little warped though. Does it suggest that I would be keen to hide inconsistencies in my opinion, or that he would be particularly keen to uncover them?

I demand to know how you are profiting from my inability to search for your posts BR!

If you're getting any sort of freebies including but not limited to tickets, blazers, dinners, back rubs, religious literature - I have a right to know.

As for inconsistencies in your opinions - how does your inconsistency benefit Ulster Rugby, the URSC or Holywood Mike's search for the shangri-la of cheerleaders?

Time for you to come clean....




( )

BR, you seem to be suggesting that you believe the Search facility is of little use or perhaps not even required. As it is available, there should be a level playing field for all users and that is not the case presently.

You chose “warped” rather than the more benign word “strange”. I assume therefore that you mean that I have been unpleasant or harmful.

As you allude to, inconsistencies in written opinion may be detected by the use of the search facilities on this and other MB’s and, yes from time to time I may well wish to be aware of them. At this time, I can do so for anyone except you. Searching is however also used for reasons other than the one you knee-jerked to.

Donald Ducked wrote:I demand to know how you are profiting from my inability to search for your posts BR!

If you're getting any sort of freebies including but not limited to tickets, blazers, dinners, back rubs, religious literature - I have a right to know.

As for inconsistencies in your opinions - how does your inconsistency benefit Ulster Rugby, the URSC or Holywood Mike's search for the shangri-la of cheerleaders?

Time for you to come clean....




( )

Ok – it’s a fair cop! I admit it. Around 7 years ago when I started posting regularly on rugby related message boards, I deliberately chose a handle that I knew my fellow contributors would abbreviate to 2 letters. Once that 2 letter abbreviation had become my own, I stopped using the full longhand version of my name, in the certain knowledge that a message board supplier would one day develop a product that would be unable to carry out searches for previously posted crap using just those characters. Hedging by bets, I also chose two letters which made up a common HTML tag – therefore making searches even more difficult.

My plan was that anyone interested enough in my historical ramblings would be forced to use a popular internet search engine. With this in mind I persuaded the owners of Google to float their company and invested heavily in their stock. Finally I deliberately libelled several people on message boards throughout the world, so that the site owners had little choice but to avail of the services of pHp (the development company I had envisaged so many years before).

Therefore every time someone is dying to know what sage-like utterances I made last year, they need to visit Google and my dividend increases.

HaaaaHaaaaHaaaa soon the entire www will be mine!

As I read the registration conditions, there are no requirements on any user to ensure that the username is one that can be read by the search facility.

Nor is there an implied contract between users to ensure that everyone can make full use of all the technical features of the board.

Similarly where is the objective moral standard that beholds us to make sure our inconsistencies can be easily spotted by others?

SO what does BR stand for?

cables wrote:BR, you seem to be suggesting that you believe the Search facility is of little use or perhaps not even required.

Far from it, it is a useful tool on occasions (can't say I use it for usernames often, though) - in fact I would suggest that not being able to find references to my username disadvantages me, but you seem to suggest that I receive some sort of unfair adavntage from it. To me that is a warped view on things - but I would not infer malice from that.

As for knee-jerking (a term I believe we have used in previous correspondence) - perhaps someone else would like to point out another advantage to be had by an inability to search on ones username.

Jackie Brown wrote:SO what does BR stand for?

Try http://www.google.co.uk

Bayerischen Rundfunks

Good, so we are agreed that the Search facility is a useful tool on occasions.

I agree that the way the MB works disadvantages those who chose a username that cannot be detected by Author search (currently you). You appear to accept that disadvantage to yourself.

We are then left with only one issue to resolve:

As you can search for and find my posts (and those of everyone else who is currently registered), why do you feel that we are not disadvantaged by being unable to find your posts by use of the same facilities provided?