The discussion revolves around linking to anonymous mode in a Discourse category to improve user adoption. DNSTARS explains that while their team uses anonymous mode for managing drug screening voucher requests, users often forget how to access it. They suggest that a direct link to anonymous mode within the category could simplify the process. Stephen recommends using a group with auto-enrollment based on email domains to restrict access, which DNSTARS confirms they already use. However, the main issue is user awareness, and DNSTARS proposes that a clear, in-situ link would make the process more intuitive and encourage consistent use.
Sorry if this is one of those dumb questions…
Is there a way to linkify a user into anon mode? Everyone keeps forgetting it exists. I’d be using it like this:
Are you using anon in a specific category?
If so create a group which autoenrols users with email addresses which matches the anon namespace, then restrict posting in the category to that group.
That’s what we’ve done (and yes), it’s more the issue that people forget the fact you can use anon mode and so don’t use it. Bit of background…
We dispense out otherwise expensive drug screening services by way of a voucher, the old way was people private messaging a staffer for one of these and managing that was getting painful. We’ve moved to the auto-enrolment and anon means to a sub-cat called “Request a code”. In this way it can be assigned, tagged, tracked, and the members who pay into this service can see the provenance and delivery of a request.
I have explained several times how to use anon but I get the impression that for the user what’s happened is this…
We changed how we do this, you now need to do a thing with anonymous whatever and then do this thing here.
I can see how it might be viewed as more a “community” issue than a discourse one but I suspect if it could be linked then we would be more like this with user approach:
The thing is now in this category, click here and do the rest in situ.