Making the web a better place

[Biznessman]

One of the big things that's missing from the web today is ACCOUNTABILITY.

Virtually every website that I visit that's got a business or some kind of organisation behind it has little or no accountability.

Where are the photographs of the key people who work for these organisations? There are NONE. That doesn't inspire trust in me. And yet these websites are storing personal information about me, sometimes I have to buy things from them etc. Websites are becoming more and more a place of POWER and INFLUENCE.

Anyone in society with power must be held to account for his or her actions. We should make it mandatory for anyone running a website with any sort of responsibility or power behind it to include photographs and VALID contact details of key people who work for these organisations.

So for example for Jupiter Media you could have the photo of the Managing Director, the WebMaster, and the Head of Customer Service all on the front page, or very accessible from the front page.

Comments welcome.

[KDLA]

Well, there are privacy issues here. When you post your photo, you're making it *this* much easier for some nutball to either steal your identity or hurt you in some vengeful way. Do some research on online predators; they're not just relegated to pedophilia.

[LeeU]

There is contact information at the bottom of every page on this forum, as it is included on all of Jupitermedia's sites, including a like to corporate info. As to the pictures, you won't find them in physical business either unless it's their founder, etc. It's the company's reputation that is important, not what the person looks like.

[Biznessman]

Well, there are privacy issues here. When you post your photo, you're making it *this* much easier for some nutball to either steal your identity or hurt you in some vengeful way. Do some research on online predators; they're not just relegated to pedophilia.

Online predators normally target the weak, like children and the elderly. People who work in business are usually strong, confident individuals. They have nothing to fear, and EVEN IF THEY DID, it's not a valid reason for automatically chucking this idea in the bin.


There is contact information at the bottom of every page on this forum, as it is included on all of Jupitermedia's sites, including a link to corporate info.

A few names and titles hidden away half way down a nested page which is full of other information hardly constitutes good accountability.

It's the company's reputation that is important, not what the person looks like.

No, I completely disagree. Of course company reputation matters, but companies are nothing without the people who work in them. After all, it is the people within companies who make all the day to day decisions. We need to create that personal link between companies and their customers, and photographs help that immensely.

[Taschen]

@Biznessman

1. All UK/EU businesses trading online must display information such as a VAT number, terms of trading, a (physical) contact address (not PO box), a contact name, and it is good practice to display a phone number. These and other rules are specified in the distance selling regulations.

2. Contact details and terms of trading must be "visible" and easily accessible. Various pieces of disablity legislation (access for screen readers etc) must also be taken into account.

These are just one or two examples of why the internet is not a wild west free for all. Perhaps you need to develop your online judgement; just as there are certain streets you wouldn't go down, so there are areas on the net it's advisable not to go to.

Your rant pre-supposes that everyone using the net is a child, a somewhat patronising position to shout at us all from.

There is plenty of accountability on the net whether it is self regulation or existing (national) law, and contrary to your assertion that
"sometimes I have to buy things from them"
you do not. You are perfectly free NOT to deal with any business you wish not to deal with.

Finally, if you feel that a company collects too much personal data about you, don't deal with that company or alternatively take some responsibility and complain to the company about whatever grievence you may have with them.

[Biznessman]

As a slight aside, I see more and more companies using online forms as a way of dealing with customer service issues like complaints etc.

Where is the accountability there?

[Biznessman]

1. All UK/EU businesses trading online must display information such as a VAT number, terms of trading, a (physical) contact address (not PO box), a contact name, and it is good practice to display a phone number. These and other rules are specified in the distance selling regulations.

Yes, I appreciate this, but it doesn't go far enough, in my opinion.


2. Contact details and terms of trading must be "visible" and easily accessible.

Well as I said before, it is getting harder and harder to get hold of a real person who represents the company via the internet.

These are just one or two examples of why the internet is not a wild west free for all. Perhaps you need to develop your online judgement; just as there are certain streets you wouldn't go down, so there are areas on the net it's advisable not to go to.

Well, I'm talking about big well-known companies primarily, I don't see why I should avoid any of these just because they haven't taken their responsibilities seriously enough. I'd also like to see an internet which is a safe place for all decent people to use, and no 'no-go' areas. It's far too easy for too many people to get away with doing whatever the heck they like on the internet at the moment.

Your rant pre-supposes that everyone using the net is a child, a somewhat patronising position to shout at us all from.

Well we're all children to some degree, even myself lol. I'm just drawing attention to something that you seem not to have considered properly.

There is plenty of accountability on the net whether it is self regulation or existing (national) law, and contrary to your assertion that "sometimes I have to buy things from them" you do not. You are perfectly free NOT to deal with any business you wish not to deal with.

In theory yes, but as more and more business is done on the net, will we have any choice left?

[KDLA]

Online predators normally target the weak, like children and the elderly. People who work in business are usually strong, confident individuals. They have nothing to fear, and EVEN IF THEY DID, it's not a valid reason for automatically chucking this idea in the bin.

That is a generalized statement. Online predators target anyone, from ex-girlfriends to employers who have done them wrong.

I'm not saying that having contact information is wrong, because it's not. But having photos online is. It makes it much easier to locate someone if their face is attached to the email address/organization.

[LeeU]

People who work in business are usually strong, confident individuals. They have nothing to fear
Actually, recent reports in Wired and Money magazines (among others) proves otherwise.

A few names and titles hidden away half way down a nested page which is full of other information hardly constitutes good accountability.
Not sure where you're looking but it's not a nested page. Look at the bottom of this page. There is a contact link, plus links to the corporate page, etc. You can contact any member of the top management of Jupitermedia.

No, I completely disagree. Of course company reputation matters, but companies are nothing without the people who work in them. After all, it is the people within companies who make all the day to day decisions. We need to create that personal link between companies and their customers, and photographs help that immensely.
You know all of the management people at Enron looked very nice, indeed. So what? They all turned out to be crooks!

[wamboid]

Our company doesn't post pictures of employees in specific jobs just because we would have to keep closer track that the right picture is currently there, although we do have several pics of various employees throughout the site. Meanwhile, even if I had a picture representing every employee, on the web, how could you possibly know that those were my actual employees and not just some good looking models I've hired to inspire your confidence?

[Biznessman]

That is a generalized statement.

Well, it's what a site via Google threw up as the definition of online predators.

Online predators target anyone, from ex-girlfriends to employers who have done them wrong

That sounds like there is some guilt on the part of the person who is targeted. If so, they could be targeted anywhere, not just on the net.

It makes it much easier to locate someone if their face is attached to the email address/organization.

Which is precisely why I'm suggesting this, so that people can be held to account for their actions.

Actually, recent reports in Wired and Money magazines (among others) proves otherwise.

Oh really, pray tell.

Not sure where you're looking but it's not a nested page. Look at the bottom of this page. There is a contact link, plus links to the corporate page, etc. You can contact any member of the top management of Jupitermedia.

The contact link is just a fairly standard page with a form attached. No real accountability there, where are the details of the people who will be dealing with the message? No timescales for response times either.

For Jupiter staff details, I was looking at the about page (http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/about.html) but I see at the executive page (http://www.jupitermedia.com/corporate/executive.html) there is a better listing. The job titles don't mean much to the casual visitor and need explanation, but hats off to you guys, it's a heck of a lot more information than a lot of companies provide on their websites. But still no photographs!

Take these WebDeveloper forums for example. It is not immediately clear who is in charge here. I would assume that KDLA (not a very good choice of name by the way, it should be her full name) is one of the people in charge with a name like 'Miss Moderator', but why is this not made clear when I enter the forums for the first time? Where is her picture?

You know all of the management people at Enron looked very nice, indeed. So what? They all turned out to be crooks!

Yes, photos aren't a guarantee that nothing bad will happen. But I think you'll find that the majority of company management are not like the Enron people.

Our company doesn't post pictures of employees in specific jobs just because we would have to keep closer track that the right picture is currently there, although we do have several pics of various employees throughout the site. Meanwhile, even if I had a picture representing every employee, on the web, how could you possibly know that those were my actual employees and not just some good looking models I've hired to inspire your confidence?

Well of course, there's no way you could guarantee the system would be free from abuse. I would propose that the idea was made part of the distance selling regulations (for the UK), I presume there are penalties if these are not complied with.

I'm not suggesting you post pictures of every single employee (although you could do if you really wanted to). At the very least, the head of the organisation like the Chairman or Managing Director, and preferably other key people as I've previously described.

[KDLA]

Well, a forum is quite different from an organization. This forum is sponsored by Jupiter Media, but you'll find that the Moderators are doing their jobs on a volunteer basis. As volunteers (and not answerable to JupiterMedia in any other way than being banned), we aren't required to divulge any personal information, which is the same benefit you enjoy as a volunteer participant.

[Biznessman]

It doesn't matter whether you're being paid or not, KDLA. You're still in a position of responsibility, having the power for example to move and delete posts and ban troublesome users etc. So, you should be required to divulge your full name and what you look like.

[JPnyc]

This is not a government, it's not a public facitlity, it's privately owned. Your opinion has been heard, however we are under no obligation whatsoever to disclose anything but precisely what we wish, just as you are not required to use the facility. We present it for those who wish to use it, and since Jupitermedia owns it, they determine the terms of use, entirely and exclusively.

[Biznessman]

Yes, well, that is the case.....for now.

[David Harrison]

You're still in a position of responsibility, having the power for example to move and delete posts and ban troublesome users etc. So, you should be required to divulge your full name and what you look like.I'm so unclear on how you maed that leap.

Banning spammers, moving posts to the correct forum, deleting duplicate threads. How does that equate to a requirement to divulge very personal information on the web?

The very worst thing I could do to someone on this forum would be to ban them without cause. This would obviously make them pretty angry or upset, and they could complain to JupiterMedia about it (and they would probably be reinstated). However, carrying on the worst case scenario again, lets say JM told them to get on their bike and leave. OK, so this person has been banned through no fault of their own, oh my word, who is to be held accountable? How about no-one, since nowhere does it say that JM have to provide the service to everyone, or in fact, anyone.

[Biznessman]

You call it 'very personal information', I wouldn't call it that. Very personal information is things like your home address or your medical records or what's going on in your personal life. None of this should be made public, of course.

We use our full names all the time in our daily lives, and our faces are regularly seen by lots of people (normally), so what's the difference with putting this on the web? If everyone did it, it would soon become the accepted norm.

In the case you mentioned, yes companies do have the right to make those decisions, but the person who is banned is entitled to know exactly who made the decision, and why.

[JPnyc]

They are entitled to know why, they are not entitled to know by whom. There is a provision to include "reason for banning" in the software, and if that is blank they can always contact the forum administrator, which would be me. The link is plainly included in the banned account message a banned user would see, upon attempting to login.

The identity of the party who banned them should not matter at all, just as we don't know the identity of the users themselves.

[Biznessman]

I feel like I'm repeating myself here, but I'll say it again in case you misunderstood.

It does matter who does the banning, and the reason it matters is because there is power there. Power needs to be accountable.

I don't know your name, but let's just say it's John Peters. If you banned me, for example, I would want to know that it was John Peters who banned me, not JPnyc. Why? Because I would know that it was a REAL PERSON, not some alias that means next to nothing to me.

The user's identity is not so important, because they don't have any power in the situation.

[David Harrison]

What's in a name? If JPnyc changed his username to John Peters, how do you know that's his real name? And even if it was, what does that gain you? He's still a REAL PERSON, why does John Peters make the pill any easier to swallow than JPnyc?

Additionally, you ARE repeating yourself, your entire arguement is based around, "I think <insert opinion>." That's not a good argument. You say, "there needs to be accountability." But you don't provide any evidence as to why this is so. Or in fact, how having names and pictures up of the moderating team provides any sort of accountability.

Basically, this is just something that you want to be the case, and you're doing a particularly bad job of convincing us, for two core reasons. Firstly, we specifically don't want this to be the case, if a requirement to be a moderator or an admin is invasion of privacy, not many people would sign up. Secondly, as I previously said, your argument is deeply flawed, without any real substance to it.

If you really want to convince people, then you should think long and hard about why they should want it to be the case, and break your argument down into a few clear and concise logical arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument).

[Biznessman]

What's in a name? If JPnyc changed his username to John Peters, how do you know that's his real name?Well I would go by the reputation of the company. And as I say, hopefully this idea would be enforced through something like the distance selling regulations so the chances of people providing fraudulent information would be fairly small.

And even if it was, what does that gain you? He's still a REAL PERSON, why does John Peters make the pill any easier to swallow than JPnyc?You're missing the point my friend. John Peters would increase the chances of spitting the pill out instead of swallowing it much higher than using an alias.

Additionally, you ARE repeating yourself, your entire arguement is based around, "I think <insert opinion>." That's not a good argument. You say, "there needs to be accountability." But you don't provide any evidence as to why this is so. Or in fact, how having names and pictures up of the moderating team provides any sort of accountability.I will give you a clue about this. People are less likely to abuse the power that they have if they are standing on a platform with everybody watching rather than hiding in the shadows. That is the best analogy I can come up with.

Not only that, but we are very visual creatures. We are used to dealing with names and faces. Having pictures of the moderating team posted would be reassuring and enhance the overall appeal of the website, because we don't want to just see a load of text and images, we want to see the actual people who work on the site. And don't forget, there are positive reasons for you guys doing this as well as so-called negative ones.

Basically, this is just something that you want to be the case I do want it to be the case, because I know that it is the correct way forward.

and you're doing a particularly bad job of convincing us, for two core reasons. Firstly, we specifically don't want this to be the case, if a requirement to be a moderator or an admin is invasion of privacy, not many people would sign up. You don't have any proof of that. When we pass a job interview and start a new job we have to provide all sorts of information to HR don't we, and people don't complain about that. As I say, given a short amount of time, this would soon become the accepted norm.

Secondly, as I previously said, your argument is deeply flawed, without any real substance to it.

If you really want to convince people, then you should think long and hard about why they should want it to be the case, and break your argument down into a few clear and concise logical arguments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument).

I don't think my idea is flawed, but I do think perhaps I haven't explained my case as well as I could have. I will get back to you when I've thought about this a little more. In the meantime Moderator, unless anyone has anything else to add, you can close this thread and I'd like to start a new one on my return. Thank you.

[JPnyc]

No company would ever implement it. Firstly, as David said, there is no correlation between publicizing a party's name, and determining whether or not they are a real person. Obviously they're a real person if they're able to engage in a conversation. No computer program or other contrivance is sophisticated enough to carry on a conversation with a human, and consistently offer relevant replies.

Secondly, if having one's name plastered all over the web, where it will be indexed by search engines, as well as spam bots, as well as potentially more malicious types of people (i.e. identity thieves), were requirement of a job, companies would have a difficult time finding somebody willing to take that job.

However, depending on the job, the same "accountability" that you seek could easily be achieved by having the employee's unique ID, be it a number or a username on a message board. In either case the company would know exactly who that represented

[wamboid]

Secondly, if having one's name plastered all over the web, where it will be indexed by search engines, as well as spam bots, as well as potentially more malicious types of people (i.e. identity thieves), were requirement of a job, companies would have a difficult time finding somebody willing to take that job.
Especially when it comes to forums like this where the only pay is an occasional thank you. No offense David, but when I ask a question and it is answered by David Harrison, I don't hold it in any higher esteem than one answered by JPnyc just because I see his name.

btw, thanks all you moderators and admins for doing such a great job.

[KDLA]

People are less likely to abuse the power that they have if they are standing on a platform with everybody watching rather than hiding in the shadows. That is the best analogy I can come up with.
I wouldn't say this was the case with Hitler, Saddam, or Osama. To some, visibility is an elixir that feeds the urge for power as well as the opportunity to exercise that power.

You're generalizing the human condition, without consideration of historical precedent. Accountability isn't attached to external visibility, but by proper supervision internally.

KDLA

[JPnyc]

Excellent points, KD.

[LeeU]

Actually, recent reports in Wired and Money magazines (among others) proves otherwise.
Oh really, pray tell.
Well, I guess you are quite naive. This whole conversation is just a waste of time. Your arguments are like that of a child. When you go into a police station are all of the officer's pictures on the wall? If you go online to a government site (the CIA, for instance), are all of their pictures online? How about the IRS? Does Sears or WalMart place photos of all the customer service employees online? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, which reminds me of someone who was banned from certain areas of this site for this very same thing. Not sure why we're taking up forum space for this ...

[Biznessman]

When you go into a police station are all of the officer's pictures on the wall? If you go online to a government site (the CIA, for instance), are all of their pictures online? How about the IRS? Does Sears or WalMart place photos of all the customer service employees online?No, but they should! Certainly in the case of the police and supermarkets.

[Biznessman]

No company would ever implement it. Mine would.

Secondly, if having one's name plastered all over the web, where it will be indexed by search engines, as well as spam bots, as well as potentially more malicious types of people (i.e. identity thieves), were requirement of a job, companies would have a difficult time finding somebody willing to take that job.

This sounds like scaremongering. It wouldn't be 'plastered' all over the web, just in ONE PLACE, the place where they operate. You seem to forget that there are tons of real names already on the web, for example for famous people, do they get their identities stolen every day? Of course not.

When you switch on the news on tv, what's the first thing that happens? The newscaster identifies themselves. Why? To establish trust. It should be the same with the internet.

I'm gonna turn this on its head and say that it's YOU guys that are making a bad job of convincing ME that this is NOT a good idea, for the simple reason that you DON'T want it to be the case.

[tracknut]

Mine would.
Neato! Let's see the web site where we can see your photo, and by the way, what's your name?


When you switch on the news on tv, what's the first thing that happens? The newscaster identifies themselves. Why? To establish trust. It should be the same with the internet.
They probably find it in their best interest to build a close relationship with their viewers, and may even have research information that shows they will gain market share if viewers feel a close bond with the reporters. Any organization is welcome to do the same, and I suspect plenty have thought about whether to do such things or not. It would only make sense that they do think about it. But largely in the USA we are not regulated to the levels you might prefer, and we get to make our own choices as to how to run our businesses.

I'm gonna turn this on its head and say that it's YOU guys that are making a bad job of convincing ME that this is NOT a good idea, for the simple reason that you DON'T want it to be the case.
I hope I never end up in court with you on my jury :)

Dave

[JPnyc]

Mine would.



This sounds like scaremongering. It wouldn't be 'plastered' all over the web, just in ONE PLACE, the place where they operate. You seem to forget that there are tons of real names already on the web, for example for famous people, do they get their identities stolen every day? Of course not.

When you switch on the news on tv, what's the first thing that happens? The newscaster identifies themselves. Why? To establish trust. It should be the same with the internet.

I'm gonna turn this on its head and say that it's YOU guys that are making a bad job of convincing ME that this is NOT a good idea, for the simple reason that you DON'T want it to be the case.
It would be all over the web, because it would be indexed by SE's. In fact, it is your argument which distills down to "I want this, so it should be this way". Everyone else has made substantive and valid points, except yourself, and everyone else is capable of seeing this, except yourself.

Everyone else has introduced reasons why it's neither needed, nor effective. You've addressed none of those reasons, nor have you shown any evidence that what you want would aid accountability, other than your statement that it would. You have not constructed an argument, you've stated a personal desire, nothing more.

LeeU is quite correct, this serves no purpose and I decline to participate further.

[David Harrison]

Hmm, here's an interesting thought, you mentioned that uploading pictures and the names of admins and moderators would inspire trust among those joining the forum, and likewise for a business and their customers.

I have to wonder, why mention that at all? Surely after gaining this particular knowledge, for us to upload pictures and names, that would simply be basic manipulation and therefore only untrustworthy people would undertake such a practice. It would be morally reprehensible for us to do such a thing, after all, by doing that it would in some way remove the opportunity for someone to make a fair and honest judgement about us and about this forum.

Are you willing to participate in popularising such an utter manipulation of the worlds collective psyche? What a truly evil person you must be to treat people in such a fashion. I find myself shocked and appalled by the dark depths your soul contains, never has there been a more cold person, surely you have shaken hands with the devil himself. I shall forever feel a chill whene'er I recollect thee.

I shall pray for you tonight, may God have mercy on your soul. If you didn't pick up on the near fatal level of sarcasm in this post, you deserve to be shot.

[Biznessman]

Neato! Let's see the web site where we can see your photo, and by the way, what's your name?

I'm glad somebody asked that. My name is Darren Hutchison. I don't have a fully fledged business, but I knocked up a small site (http://bigbrothernominations.moonfruit.com) a little while ago just for something to do. You can see that I've added my name and photo to the site, just click on 'Who runs this site' on the left hand side.

JPnyc, your attitude seems to be a little childish, not at all befitting of a 'Community Manager'.

And David Harrison, I'm not a big fan of sarcasm, even though you seem to be now moving in the right direction....

[tracknut]

I'm glad somebody asked that. My name is Darren Hutchison. I don't have a fully fledged business, but I knocked up a small site (http://bigbrothernominations.moonfruit.com) a little while ago just for something to do. You can see that I've added my name and photo to the site, just click on 'Who runs this site' on the left hand side.

When you referred to "my company", and with your handle "Biznessman" I kind of thought you were talking about an actual business, not a fansite. But I will agree with you on one point, seeing your site and your photo has made it more clear to me as to where you're coming from in this discussion.

Dave

[Biznessman]

Well I am trying to start a business, but that's another story, lol.