?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hi all,

I run a review community on a standalone website and FurAffinity. I am a little unsure on how to handle artist/maker pseudonyms.

When a maker goes by many different names, currently I pick what I believe the "most popular" one is and put all reviews under that name, with a little subtext that says "this maker has also gone by the names B, C, and D."
However, when viewing a list of all makers that have reviews, only the first name shows in the list. You have to know the most popular name, then click it, then see what the pseudonyms have been for that listed name (as well as populate the list of reviews associated with every name for that maker).

The "problem" arises when a maker with negative reviews switches accounts and decides to "start over." Should I update the old name, since the new name is the only active one now? Should I make an entirely "new person" and allow the maker an actual fresh start, not linking the new name to the past name?

I want to represent both sides of the issue fairly. I want people reading reviews to be informed, but I also don't want to needlessly mar a maker's reputation if they are genuinely trying to get a new start. I'm open to some insight.

Thank you.

EDIT:

I decided to make a 'new person' in the list of makers for the new name. Then when someone clicks that name, it just duplicates the page content of the old name so the viewer knows all the different names are actually the same person. I didn't modify the reviews themselves, only the categorization. I also decided it'd be a case-by-case basis thing. There's no way to really keep up with all these names. The only reason I knew about one of them was because a past reviewer informed me.

Anyway, thank you for the help.

Community Tags:

Before commenting, please read our Community Rules.
Do not go after persons posted about here, by leaving comments on their art pages.
If you have been posted about, please read I've Been Posted on Artists_Beware, Now What?

Comments

( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
celestinaketzia
Jan. 9th, 2016 04:27 am (UTC)
Personally, I believe in allowing others to be able to make a complete decision on whether or not to work with someone based on their entire history. As a buyer I would really like to know if an artist has a track record of poor communication, abusive behavior, etc.

When it comes to working here we actually will update the tags to include as many known names, but unfortunately we are hindered by a character limit.
bornesb
Jan. 9th, 2016 04:35 am (UTC)
Are older bewares grandfathered or do you go back to to all old bewares and add the new tags to them too?

Edited at 2016-01-09 04:36 am (UTC)
oceandezignz
Jan. 9th, 2016 05:24 am (UTC)
When we edit a tag, generally that tag gets changed on ALL posts. Its an automatic function of LiveJournal.
bornesb
Jan. 9th, 2016 05:47 am (UTC)
Oh, I see. Apologies for misunderstanding!

So many makers have so many names though, it would seem weird to have a title of one maker be "Maker Productions" and then expand all their relevant usernames in their info page, but have another maker be listed as "Maker Productions AKA TotallyNotThatFirstGuy"

Do you think the potential messiness in the listing of all makers is worth it?

The other thing I could do is just have duplicate listings... Where "Maker Productions" is listed as one 'person' and "TotallyNotThatFirstGuy" is listed as another person, but both info pages display the same content, linking them.

Hope that makes sense. I didn't want to link examples as I don't want to come off as advertising.

edit:
But that also makes me wonder if I should do that for everyone's different names. It'd make the list a lot longer and be potentially confusing. I don't know if equal treatment is the way to go here.

Edited at 2016-01-09 05:49 am (UTC)
oceandezignz
Jan. 9th, 2016 06:00 am (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, worry not. Honestly if there was not both a character limit AND a limit on how many tags a community can possess, I'm sure we'd have a couple of tags that would be near endless with how so many people account hop to avoid their antics.

But its true after a certain point you have to break up the identities. So in your case you might have to do something like group together the top three to five known aliases (and I mean they're know via popularity and/or amount of clients on said alias), and then slap a 'previously known as' on there as well.

All in all, this just solidifies that its damn annoying when you have account hoppers! Makes you pull your hair out. :
frisket17
Jan. 9th, 2016 05:57 pm (UTC)
This.

I'd list their current name and whatever past names they went by.
That way those looking to review (example) Artist "Red" realizes they went by Crimson, Wine, and maybe even Rose --- Wine being the most popular name with maybe a negative track record.

There are artists out there that swap out names because they want to evade their previous bad rap. Con artists.
laughsatthunder
Jan. 9th, 2016 03:02 pm (UTC)
Use the old and new name. Sadly switching usernames shouldn't warrant someone to go back to old practices and get away with it.

Or, rather, "While I was under NameA I was pretty bad with _______, but now I'm under NameB so you can't hold me accountable for those actions while I carry them out under this name instead and then some."
dinogrrl
Jan. 9th, 2016 03:53 pm (UTC)
No, I would not allow a clean slate just because someone changed their online name. A name change has no bearing on the person actually changing their poor business practices. If someone really wants to start over, they can do that by making amends for past wrongs--changing their name doesn't excuse bad behavior, and it doesn't help the people they've hurt.

Honestly, if I commissioned someone based on what I did or did not see on your site, had trouble with them, found out they were notorious for past trouble under different aliases, and learned that you KNEW that but chose not to disclose it...I would be beyond ticked.
bearprince
Jan. 9th, 2016 04:04 pm (UTC)
I personally believe that if an artist is truly turning over a new leaf, that the new actions they're taking will speak for themselves. Showing that they're currently doing well will do all the work necessary to wipe the slate clean, as it were.

IMO, artists should be able to own up to past mistakes, not hide them. That immediately sets off alarm for me, since this is MUCH too often used as a way to avoid previous owed commissions and poor reputations, etc etc.

Edited at 2016-01-09 04:34 pm (UTC)
lexgoyle
Jan. 9th, 2016 08:07 pm (UTC)
I believe they should be linked for the simple fact it's it simply allows a problematic artist to hide from the problem by using a new alias which would sort of in a way defeat the purpose of this site.

Just because someone may be trying to turn a new leaf does not mean they should be allowed to run away from past problems. That's the price you pay for bad service and it sticks with you.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

A_B icon
artists_beware
Commissioner & Artist, Warning & Kudos Community

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com