Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Is it soup yet?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                             

You Complete Me

Idea Collaborators
  (+5, -10)(+5, -10)
(+5, -10)
  [vote for,
against]

It strikes me as odd that the HB does not allow direct idea collaboration. There are many here that know each other personally, or are even life partners. Surely there are some cases where they maybe interested in working on an idea together?
theircompetitor, Jun 04 2005

look at annos HoverPants
[DesertFox, Jun 05 2005]

Marassa http://www.halfbakery.com/user/Marassa
[waugsqueke, Jun 09 2005]

[link]






       [Theircom]: "You think we can get away with it?" [Petitor]: "I told you, it's perfectly safe, they will never find out we are actually two, besides, this idea throws them off!"
zeno, Jun 04 2005
  

       pretty sure this is (half)baked.
po, Jun 04 2005
  

       This is the norm in this zone
normzone, Jun 04 2005
  

       [redundant]   

       I said this and it was boned badly. People like it coming from you.   

       Its sad. The idea was deleted, (I dont know how it got deleted, either), but is mentioned in annos.   

       See link. [redundant] annotation by me mentioning this.
DesertFox, Jun 05 2005
  

       I've gotten pregnant being completed.
bristolz, Jun 05 2005
  

       A pregnant pause followed.
normzone, Jun 05 2005
  

       Nice one [bristolz], I've impregnated and was completed.
zeno, Jun 05 2005
  

       Collaboration, to me, means something intangible, something this software couldn't prevent if it wanted to.   

       What you want is editing something together, or having a list of owners of an idea whose signatures appear below it, or something like that - and that's just too much administrative hassle for too little payoff. Just acknowledge your collaborators explicitly.   

       Besides, in a way, everybody who comments on an idea is a potential collaborator. It would make me feel weird to have a privileged class of formal collaborators beyond that. I don't want to play mere audience to your public collaboration.
jutta, Jun 05 2005
  

       And then I started talking to my elf and I said, "Let's both try to copy something like this" and I said "Okay, self"
(works best in 800x600...)
  

       . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --Oren, Jun 05 2005
ghillie, Jun 05 2005
  

       One way to do it (or hack it?) is to invent a user that is actually a composite user (or in effect, a group). If this is acknowledged on that composite user's profile page with a list of contributors to that group, then it might work. It would certainly not be apparent to anyone at first glance that the idea came from a group rather than an individual, but I consider that an advantage.
Ian Tindale, Jun 05 2005
  

       I've thought a lot about composite users. I think that the future will have them in many roles.
bristolz, Jun 05 2005
  

       I thought this had been posted before, but I can't seem to find it. Anyway, it seems like an unnecessary complication to implement when joint baking is fairly easy anyway - just search for [wagster] and [crash]. The only difference would be how the bones and buns get allocated, and that's a step down the road to pettyville.
wagster, Jun 05 2005
  

       an interesting idea that, a kind of halfbakery wiki, where trusted users could edit ideas.
neilp, Jun 05 2005
  

      

// how the bones and buns get allocated//

The weird thing I’ve learned here and at other sites, is that people will work for little marks on a computer screen. Marks that have no redeemable or transferable value--no value at all. If only the government realized this! They could print up little pieces of paper and get people all over the world to send us stuff in exchange for...ah, excuse me...someone’s at the door...<loud voices, muffled screams, a clunk>
ldischler, Jun 06 2005
  

       Hmmm... user trusts are an interesting concept, a person selects specific users that they allow to edit; although it could lead to the Capulets vs. Montagues or more simply a great way for one user to manipulate the votes.
RayfordSteele, Jun 07 2005
  

       wagster, it was done before (by yours truly) and got the same reception as this. The reason you couldn't find it was that I must have deleted it.
DesertFox, Jun 07 2005
  

       theircompetitor: been there, done that. In fact, some accounts have actually been two- or multi-headed horses.
DrCurry, Jun 07 2005
  

       oh, it's quite obvious people have done that in secret.
theircompetitor, Jun 07 2005
  

       Hm, I could swear I saw this posted here some time before...
waugsqueke, Jun 08 2005
  

       Me too. I just wish I could remember who posted it before.
half, Jun 08 2005
  

       maybe one of me did it ?
neilp, Jun 08 2005
  

       [waugs], [half], nope. Never.
Detly, Jun 08 2005
  

       tc: Given all IDs are anonymous shells, how does not being secret make a difference? I don't think there's a Turing Test to detect split personalities.
DrCurry, Jun 08 2005
  

       Well, [DrCurry], there's a certain persona we tend to attach to the monikers -- so I think that an idea that's explicitly authored by UB & FJ would certainly be expected to have different characteristics than one by a clandestine merge-id.
theircompetitor, Jun 08 2005
  

       There's been at least one dual-persona username in use here (link).
waugsqueke, Jun 09 2005
  

       wtf? jutta, we are getting spammed by [savetheearth]
theircompetitor, Jan 02 2010
  

       I bin flagging the spam links. Think what it wants to "wind up" is us.   

       What I'm getting a little giggle about is I could practically nail [tc]'s join date from this post by subtracting a couple months: the gestation period of newby h'bakers between getting an account and proposing a collaborative effort, bulletin-board or hardcopy book seems to be 6-12 weeks.
FlyingToaster, Jan 02 2010
  

       If you see spam, send email to bakesperson, don't just react within the site. Thanks!
jutta, Jan 05 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle