[arrows]

AFAICT, on BBO, a user can watch anonymously. Perhaps it is a good user-friendly feature.

But sometimes it feels too friendly, Can a table host at least have an option, to disallow anonymous kibitzers but still open to named users?

AFAIK, there have been cases some people use this convenience to cheat in online games,
playing on a computer while watching anonymously on a cell phone


Thanks!

[FelicityR]

I rarely play on BBO these days, and whilst not 'spooked' (for want of a better word) by anonymous kibbers watching my game, I have been at tables where it didn't take too much deduction to recognise that the opponents were cheating.

The problem here is the host at the table has the power to allow or disallow kibitzers, and if the host is cheating then it's not the kibitzer who is booted off the table, but one of the opponents. Namely me, on one occasion a few years back!

I dared to question the opponents auction, in as polite a way as possible, only to find myself back in the lobby in a matter of seconds.

As it takes a matter of seconds to log in to BBO, maybe all anonymous kibitzers should be disallowed from the site. It is easy enough to make yourself invisible on the site, and I found out recently that you are not as invisible as you seem. I joined a table as an 'invisible' logged-in kib where a mutual friend was playing and she said 'hello' to me :-)

So maybe BBO needs to tweak the settings further than the zzzz number kibitzers who watch anonymously.

[DaveRolyat]

I guess it's for marketing to casual surfers, but i too have seen it abused

[pescetom]

Why should anyone want to kibbitz a specific table anonymously?
This feature cries out to be removed.

[pescetom]

--

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-November-15, 07:25, said:

Why should anyone want to kibbitz a specific table anonymously?
This feature cries out to be removed.

They might want to watch experts, like the JEC games. Why would they want to kibbitz randoms?

[barmar]

There currently isn't a way to do this. You can use the "Require permission to kibbitz" option, then you'll have to approve all kibbitzers, and you can reject anonymous users (the usernames all begin with "zzz_").

I've moved this thread to the Suggestions for the Software forum.

[HeavyDluxe]

It is possible to open multiple, authenticated BBO sessions using different browsers, or different devices. If you're wanting to disable cheating, turning off the anonymous kibitz accomplishes nearly nothing.

If you want to prevent cheating, disallow kibitzing at your table. Otherwise, I'm all in favor of the anonymous, 'just watch' functionality. I've used it to expose people to the game during major tournaments or when there's a particularly good table on.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-15, 10:56, said:

They might want to watch experts, like the JEC games.

Yes, but why should they need or even prefer to be anonymous while doing so?

HeavyDluxe, on 2019-November-15, 13:57, said:

If you want to prevent cheating, disallow kibitzing at your table. Otherwise, I'm all in favor of the anonymous, 'just watch' functionality. I've used it to expose people to the game during major tournaments or when there's a particularly good table on.

You don't want to prevent cheating?
They would have missed something if it was known to all that they were watching?

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-November-17, 15:57, said:

Yes, but why should they need or even prefer to be anonymous while doing so?

Kibbitzing is the only thing that anonymous users can do.

It sounds like your complaint is that we have the "Watch anonymously" feature in the first place. It allows people to explore the site before they sign up.

I'm not really sure why we need it, since signing up is free. But we've had it forever.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-18, 10:56, said:

Kibbitzing is the only thing that anonymous users can do.

It sounds like your complaint is that we have the "Watch anonymously" feature in the first place. It allows people to explore the site before they sign up.

I'm not really sure why we need it, since signing up is free. But we've had it forever.

Like a few other things you've had forever, it is never too late to fix it
Letting people kibbitz a good game to entice them to sign up might make sense, but the game should be selected by BBO.

[barmar]

How would disallowing anonymous kibbitzers actually solve the problem? They'll just create throwaway accounts instead.

As long as BBO is free, there's not a whole lot that can be done about this.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-19, 09:26, said:

How would disallowing anonymous kibbitzers actually solve the problem? They'll just create throwaway accounts instead.

As long as BBO is free, there's not a whole lot that can be done about this.

I don't see that at all. Named accounts can be traced, both by users and by the system. People will notice if the same nick turns up to kibbitz a certain table or user frequently or at critical moments. The system can trace who kibbitzes who and let an algorithm or ad administrator look for patterns. The system could link kibbitzing to actual play (one hour of play enables one hour of kibbitzing) to reduce the possibility of using throwaway accounts. The system could log IP addresses and warn the table if any two nicks present are linked by address now or in the recent past. And so on.

Perhaps your problem is that reducing cheating would also reduce revenue, at least in the short term? That is at least understandable.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-November-19, 10:45, said:

I don't see that at all. Named accounts can be traced, both by users and by the system. People will notice if the same nick turns up to kibbitz a certain table or user frequently or at critical moments. The system can trace who kibbitzes who and let an algorithm or ad administrator look for patterns. The system could link kibbitzing to actual play (one hour of play enables one hour of kibbitzing) to reduce the possibility of using throwaway accounts. The system could log IP addresses and warn the table if any two nicks present are linked by address now or in the recent past. And so on.

Some of those strategies could be applied to anonymous kibbitzers, too. Anonymous players have IP addresses. Note that we don't generally consider people at the same IP to be cheaters, they're more often family members playing with or kibbitzing each other honestly. However, when cheating is suspected for other reasons, being on the same IP is certainly a factor.

Quote

Perhaps your problem is that reducing cheating would also reduce revenue, at least in the short term? That is at least understandable.

Well, we don't want to do things that will impact new players' ability to enjoy the site. If we get rid of "Watch anonymously" they'll have to create an account, and we'd like them to be able to use all the features immediately in place of that.