I Am More Than My IPVM Title

This is meant to be a post on a funny subject. Funny as in "odd" not "ha ha."

For a variety of reasons (usually employer sensitivity--often hyper-sensitivity--to social media) a number of us post undisclosed. When doing so we get tagged with our current role, i.e. "Manufacturer, End User, Integrator, or Distributor."

I would encourage the members that very often that tag you see does not define us historically--only presently. Many of us have varied backgrounds. For example, while currently working in Distribution, I have far more years as an Integrator, and even more as an End User Security Director/Leader.

I suspect that is the case with many IPVM members.

When you see an "undisclosed" member weigh-in to help another member, it may help to keep in mind that this is a small industry and many of us have spent years in many roles. As such, our insights may benefit you in spite of our IPVM title when undisclosed.


This is a GREAT post! My title is "Integrator" but this has only been for a very short time, while I was an "End User" for over 17 years. So while my posts indicate Integrator - my views, opinions and suggestions typically come from an end user prospective.

1 and 2, good points, thanks for bringing it up.

The intention of that feature was to automatically provide some context, which is especially important for manufacturers.

I am open to adjusting the approach. For 1, I changed your segmentation, since I agree for you it is certainly misleading. 2, I can change yours as well if you prefer.

Anyone else with a special circumstance, feel free to post and we will review.

Thanks, John.

To everyone else, to be clear, I am hoping that we all keep in mind that whatever label we may see with Undisclosed, it may not truly describe the value that member can bring to a particular discussion.

Thanks John,

No need to change mine. Its just an interesting topic as so many in this industry have a varied background, beyond just their current position.

can i get undisclosed spook ?

do we have undisclosed trolls?

on a more serious note its ok i guess unless you wear many hats. (DEV, integrator, end user, etc)

it has is positives and negatives depending on the topic when its posted

I do love it when when the "undisclosed (relevant manufacturer rep) employee shows up in the posts though

I want to be Undisclosed Undisclosed.

I'm currently "in between" assignments, and not sure where I will land yet...

Not to mislead anyone, I would be happy to use Unemployed 1, if it's available.

"undisclosed" carries no trace record nor credibility. Would actually hope that IPVM allow posts by unique nickname.

I see some benefits of nicknames. On the other hand, sites that allow that typically descend into "BigBadBoy666" responding to "Sexspo316", etc., etc.

I like the way you think John. Must be a HAWAII kind of thing ;)

"undisclosed" carries no trace record nor credibility...

Sounds like you might be interested in a Reputational Representation For Anonymous Avatars With Dynamic Display?

5, I missed that post from last year, sorry.

Btw, I think that is a good idea but I just want to make sure that it does not deanonymize undisclosed. Shall you go with #1 undisclosed commenter of all time?

I'd be happy with just this

John,

Please change mine to integrator, as I am with an integrator.

Do undisclosed posts still count for post total counts? I am unsure if I have ever posted undisclosed, but if I have, it hasn't been more than a few times.

Undisclosed posts do not show up in the total counts applied to the actual posters name account...

You can check yourself: Go to your Profile (top right of page) and choose Member Page - then My Comments (bottom of list on right) - then you can physically count the posts you've made over the last 90 days.... which are dated and are listed in chronological order.

My question is: If Undisclosed posts are already assigned to specific user accounts (which we can see by the above) - why don't the Undisclosed posts count for inclusion in the 'Top - Last 3 Months' list?

My question is: If Undisclosed posts are already assigned to specific user accounts (which we can see by the above) - why don't the Undisclosed posts count for inclusion in the 'Top - Last 3 Months' list?

As a purely hypothetical example, imagine that Bryan Schmode was an avid IPVM poster, with a run-rate of 500 PPQ. Mr. Schmode might never post under his real name, for fear of scorn.

But if the Top-Last 3 Months list reflected his undisclosed posts, he would go from total annonymity one day, to poster all-star the next, (when he broke into the top).

Not true. You aren't the same undisclosed number in every thread. The only way this would hold is if he posted over and over in the same threads (see my Hik rant lol).

What's not true?

For specific strings, you are correct - your Undisclosed number will be different (because this identification structure comes from the chronological order of your entrance to the string as an Undisclosed poster.... i.e. if there is an Undisclosed 4 already in the string, you will be Undisclosed 5).

However, ALL of your posts (whether under your own name or Undisclosed) show up on your own list of comments on your Profile page.

You aren't the same undisclosed number in every thread.

But some people try just the same.

Since you "rarely, if ever" post undisclosed, you can be forgiven not understanding the rarely mentioned concept of "undisclosed primacy".

Which is the added attraction, (or repulsion in some outlier cases), of being the first enumerated participant of a discussion.

To some, whether they can be "the one" or not, weighs heavily on their decision whether to join in the discussion, leading to a far greater preponderance of U1 than any other.

Concern about being #2 may appear vain, and it is, but it is really no different than the well known disappointment experienced when you are assigned a less desirable label, as shown below:

I agree with the premise of your example - but all that shows is that your hypothetical Mr. Schmode posts a lot as Undisclosed.

It would still maintain the anonymity of his individual posts.*

*unless he uses links to his own Youtube account when he posts clips.

It would still maintain the anonymity of his individual posts.

True, but who said that was the only goal of posting anonymously? Some would rather not be identified as posters at all, perhaps those with social media work bans.

*unless he uses links to his own YouTube account when he posts.

Some posts, even when the identity is known to all by the mere context, i.e. a mocking Saturday morning Seinfeld clip, play better as undisclosed, so that the mocked do not take it personally, unless they really want to...

In any case that is a decision the poster makes of his own volition.

I don't disagree with any of that....

So the separate knob is a conscious design choice?