Any of you nerds waiting on 12:01?

For a social opportunity- list what username you wanted, what you got, and how many retries it took.

6/12/2009 11:14:06 PM

i'm waiting, but not on the edge of my seat or anything

also, see message_topic.aspx?topic=568324

[Edited on June 12, 2009 at 11:20 PM. Reason : i'm still debating whether i'll register ken.warner or qntmfred. prolly ken.warner though]

6/12/2009 11:19:44 PM

i'll be up then, so yeah, i'll probably do it

i'm not staying up specifically for that reason, though

6/12/2009 11:23:01 PM

hey cdubya, will usernames be integrated into the rest of the site in any way or is strictly useful for URL brevity sake?

6/12/2009 11:25:09 PM

asdf

6/12/2009 11:25:36 PM

I'm shooting for xoxolilhotty6969 if I can get it.

6/12/2009 11:25:36 PM

nice doublepost

6/12/2009 11:30:03 PM

ZOMGLOCKSUSPENDTERMINATE

6/12/2009 11:32:02 PM

I, for one, will not be partaking in this. That is, if I have the choice not to.

6/12/2009 11:32:23 PM

Quote :

"also, see message_topic.aspx?topic=568324"

Good call- I just don't read chit-chat.

Quote :

"will usernames be integrated into the rest of the site"

Hmmm- I'm actually not sure!

6/12/2009 11:32:54 PM

have y'all experienced significant load increase because of this?

6/12/2009 11:38:11 PM

^not yet, but we're predicting one

6/12/2009 11:41:10 PM

cdubya...do you work for facebook?

[/question apparently only i don't know the answer to]

6/12/2009 11:41:39 PM

^jah

6/12/2009 11:45:48 PM

WELL, THEN

application development, i assume?

6/12/2009 11:46:24 PM

networking, i believe

6/12/2009 11:46:58 PM

WELL THEN.

(AGAIN).

6/12/2009 11:48:59 PM

you guys should blog about the traffic spike. obviously there's not a lot of bandwidth involved compared to the amount of photos etc, but i'd guess number of connections specifically to that resource will be crazy for a few minutes at a time as each time zone (are you doing it by timezone or is it a single freeforall?)

6/13/2009 12:02:16 AM

dr.spaceman confirmed

6/13/2009 12:05:29 AM

site seems to be handling the rush very well. better load times than usual, actually

6/13/2009 12:08:06 AM

picked "joshzilla"

it was available and loaded etc on first try

6/13/2009 12:13:08 AM

Quote :

"better load times than usual, actually"

6/13/2009 12:16:26 AM

so for regular users, when i go to my (or other people's) profiles, the http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=123456789 format has already been replaced with http://www.facebook.com/yoitbemyname if they've picked a username
but for Pages, URLs are still showing the http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bargain-City-Plus/123456789 format, even if they've registered a username. is that a glitch?

6/13/2009 12:26:32 AM

Quote :

" Any of you nerds waiting on 12:01? For a social opportunity- list what username you wanted, what you got, and how many retries it took. "

always glad to see what the cool people are doing on a friday night

6/13/2009 3:40:43 AM

I cant find a way to update a "page" I created to use the new naming scheme. It doesnt ask me for a username anywhere on the page.

6/13/2009 9:05:44 AM

you can do it at http://www.facebook.com/username but if you just created the page, you won't be able to pick a username for it yet

6/13/2009 9:34:34 AM

I went for my unity id (which happens to contain my entire last name) and got it first try.

6/13/2009 9:56:09 AM

^^ yeah, finally figured out they were serious about that URL ... I thought they were just showing what the syntax would look like.

Only 1 of my pages were eligible ... you have to have 1k "Fans" in order to do that with your pages...

6/13/2009 11:18:50 AM

is it true that where period's are in the name doesn't matter?

mine was carson.parris and i tried facebook.com/carsonparr.is and it took me to my profile.

6/13/2009 11:57:02 AM

damn 5 character minimum

6/13/2009 12:33:21 PM

sc.ud

6/13/2009 12:40:53 PM

.root

6/13/2009 1:48:16 PM

wtf - when I tried to create a username with my full name, it said it was already taken. So I went to see who took it, and it brought up some kind of advertising page, kind of like a domain squatters name.

So i just used First Initial + Last Name instead, and it worked fine.
But now I go back to check the full name, which was an advertisement a couple hours ago, and now it's not taken and redirects back to the homepage

6/13/2009 3:47:46 PM

Quote :

"damn 5 character minimum "

damn straight! I wanted Jere so bad.

I guess my full name is more professional though and it matches my gmail account nicely too. At least there's that.


obligatory


[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM. Reason : sfag]

6/13/2009 5:51:37 PM

facebook.com/philihp

6/16/2009 12:53:11 AM

I consider myself fairly tech savvy...

but facebook confuses the hell out of me.

6/16/2009 1:46:50 AM

haha
[image]http://cdn-http://www.i-am-bored.com/media/23785_facebookURLsteal.jpg[/image]

6/16/2009 3:53:19 PM

anyone read that Facebook vs Google article in this month's Wired?

6/20/2009 4:32:07 PM

wired is for old people

6/20/2009 4:36:44 PM

so you read it then?

6/20/2009 4:48:42 PM

HOLY GOD I NEVER ANTICIPATED MY OWN BARB BEING TURNED AGAINST ME SO DEFTLY

[Edited on June 20, 2009 at 4:52 PM. Reason : WOUNDED...]

[Edited on June 20, 2009 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ...DYING!]

6/20/2009 4:52:26 PM

DONT FUCK WIT DIS ENDLESS POOL OF 12 MINUTE QUIPS

6/20/2009 5:13:14 PM

I really wonder why social networking and instant messaging services require usernames to be unique.

People pick the same names anyway, they just add a number at the end or something.

Why not require username+password to be unique and allow multiple occurances of the same username?

For social networking type applications, handling duplicate usernames seems pretty easy. People generally want the user they know, so give them the occurance off of their contact list.

When handling duplicate usernames in a context without clues (adding a new friend, for example), just show a list!

Facebook seemed to have it all figured out, and then they went and fucked it up by adding unique usernames, calling them usernames, and then allowing multiple pages for each user to be given a "username".

I imagine it's going to be harder to find a unique Facebook username than it is going to be to satisfy the password requirements given enough time

6/20/2009 5:15:18 PM

^

what if you pick the same username and password as someone else? if you know your password was rejected, you know the password of someone else with the same username

6/20/2009 5:20:56 PM

^^that is a really dumb idea to match passwords and usernames for uniqueness. If you really wanted multiple usernames then you would match them to emails not passwords...lol

6/20/2009 5:33:01 PM

^^^
:facepalm:

Quote :

"what if you pick the same username and password as someone else? if you know your password was rejected, you know the password of someone else with the same username"

6/20/2009 6:24:09 PM

Are you people seriously that daft?

If you're trying to obtain access to a specific account, duplicate usernames are irrelevant. If you're trying to obtain access to any account, then I suppose duplicate usernames will make a brute force attack somewhat more effective. It would take a number of users sharing the same username before the password strength for that single username was reduced by the equivalent of a single character in length. You can even compensate by requiring longer passwords for shared usernames as a function of the number of usernames in a manner that is statistically equivalent to unshared usernames with constant password requirements. This is a pretty fucking stupid moot point and dead obvious consequence of what I proposed.

Not revealing the password for a shared username is as simple as integrating the duplicate username+password check into password strength checks and not returning "LOL YOU GUESSED THE PASSWORD OF SOMEONE ELSE WITH THE SAME USERNAME", but instead something indistinguishable from a password strength error. This is another obvious consequence of the proposal and not even remotely an issue.

I wasn't trying to explore the most painfully obvious ramifications of shared usernames with that post, but rather the effect it would have on ease of use, the value of "usernames", seniority, etc in social networks. You're right, though, I should have known better. You people have no vision.

[Edited on June 20, 2009 at 8:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2009 8:36:55 PM

again...why the hell would you match usernames to passwords when you can just match usernames to emails? If I want to add you to my friends list and your username is ImStupid but that search returns half a million users then my next step would be to add you via your email address because that would be unique. I'm not going to say, ok well add ImStupid with password retarded as a friend

and also if I try to use the password stupid and it returns "password strength sucks" but idiot works then I'm going to assume that stupid was someone else's password with the same username because obviously idiot isn't any stronger. Just because it doesn't return an error in plain english that says someone already used that password doesn't mean its going to be too difficult to figure out.

6/20/2009 8:54:00 PM

^^That post just has to be a troll attempt. There's no way you can start off a post with "Are you people seriously that daft?" and then proceed to be ABSOLUTELY FUCKING RETARDED for like 4 more paragraphs.

Not to mention the fact that 9/10 of the reason to pick a username is to get facebook.com/yournamehere.

If you have multiple people sharing the same username, what's the point?

6/20/2009 9:10:47 PM

I was going to post this as a separate thread, but it was inspired by the FB username transition so I threw it here. I understand that in many cases (username is used for e-mail, URL generation, etc) it's not relevant.

This is going nowhere, though. Forget the post. I'll just work it into a project in the future if I want to experiment, TT's professional web development bloc apparently can't handle hypotheticals.

6/20/2009 9:29:11 PM