> StackExchange still has the pseudonym problem.

You mean the Psuedonym feature. I participate on various stackexchanges with different aliases (sometimes on the same stackexchange) because I don't want anyone to be able to profile me.

I don't contribute on Quora, even though I have a lot to contribute.

What do you feel could happen if somebody profiled you?

Oh, you'd be amazed at the number of times I managed to get an edge on a competitor by googling - e.g. knowing where their technical problems are, how they are going to approach a prospect, etc -- and all of that without having to leave my keyboard.

You're welcome to try to figure out what line of business I am in, which company, etc. There are a few posts I made on several stack exchanges which would give my competitors a big advantage while competing for a client.

If they only knew it was me.

On the other hand, having a consistent identity also helps people help you.

It does?

Can you give an example?

Sure. At Citrix we use the Haskell compiler ghc. I mention that quite often, and also that we have problems with cross-compiling. Recently I've been approached by one of the people involved in developing the cross-compiling capabilities of ghc of how they can help. (We want cross-compiling, they want people using their code and reporting bugs.)

Basically, you want to be known to people who you have opportunities to win-win interactions with (aligned interests), and avoid being known to people who could exploit you to your disadvantage (opposed interests).

Depending on what you want to optimize for, or what kind of interactions you feel are prevalent, having a consistent identity will help or hinder you. Of course, it's not a binary choice.

    You don't go to StackExchange to hang out - you go there 
    to ask answer/ask questions. It's like Wikipedia.

Maybe I'm missing some portion of Quora then, but that's exactly how I use Quora. I've never found any indication on Quora that I can do anything other than ask and answer questions.

    Whenever people tell you to look into something that 
    appears curious - try it for 2 weeks and make your own 
    judgement.

That's what I've been trying to do, I've even gone out of my way to ask questions on Quora just so I can understand the experience, my problem seems to be that how you're describing it (as some form of community?) does not match how I've experienced it.

Perhaps there is a feature or section of the site I'm not aware of? As I mentioned, some sort of example on Quora or Quora being this fascinating and valuable community experience would be great, because I just can't find it.

My experience with Quora mirrors your own. However a friend of mine was absolutely nuts about it, he chalked it up to having found a group of people to follow who were asking and answering interesting questions.

This difference made Quora less of a Q+A site and more of an interesting news, facts and opinions site to him.

Ditto. Quora's strength is only the competencies of the people who contribute. With any Q/A site that deals with subjective content that isn't moderated by knowledgeable/qualified persons in those matters, it's more of a rush to see who can answer the question first with the most words and inflated vocabulary to warrant upvotes more than it is a place to get real responses. When anyone and everyone is allowed to pour in their two cents, and especially when credence is given based on popularity or place of employ, the results cannot be taken as seriously as they could be. Doubly so when it is used as a means to advertise your half-baked startup initiative.

But SE has a business and make revenue + profit no?

So does ExpertsExchange - what's your point?

If profit were the only things that mattered then Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google could never have gotten off the ground. Those things hemorrhaged cash for years.

It's how startups work. They are risky. They are unlikely to succeed. They often look like complete jokes.

And that's why you have to watch them carefully. Because it's the stuff you don't notice that really gets you.

My point is that I don't understand what your point is when you keep talking about the pseudonyms.

Imagine Facebook without real names and you'll see my point.

Names are just a way to tie you to an identity, if you can rely on someone to always be under the same name you can treat it just as if it were their real name (even if it isn't). I run a large forum (a community) and a huge number of people have formed value relations through it and they exist under pseudonyms.

For me personally most people that know of me know me by my username (citricsquid) and wouldn't be able to tell you my real name, so if I appear on a website as "Samuel Ryan" they're not going to have a clue who I am and would gain a lot more value if I was displayed under the identity they know me as (citricsquid).

The reason Facebook uses real names is just because it's how people are known in real life, Facebook exists as an extension of real life and so using real names is the sensible decision that provides most value to users.

Exactly.

It doesn't matter what you call yourself. What matters is whether you build a history, integrity and value around that name.

And even then, some people sign up to Facebook using a fake name, so that they can connect to some people they know in real life while avoiding other people they know in real life. (e.g. to talk to friends while avoiding colleagues and clients.)

I don't actually.

Real names work for facebook. That does not mean that pseudonyms do not work for others.

That's not hard to imagine, people did it on MySpace and Friendster. These days, Facebook isn't really much better or different from those earlier social networks.

_why the lucky stiff