Results 21 to 25 of 50
October 13th, 2013 06:28 AM #21Senior Member
- Join Date
- May 2013
I totally agree. That is very sad and really unfair. I think people should just talk about future baby names and all sorts. There is plenty of room for that. I toally agree with @casilda. they should post fake babies in the name games forum. There is just no point of that.married to my wonderful husband--P.J.
mommy to--- Bridger Alexander(7) , Avery Matthew(3) and Owen Samuel arrived on September 5th!!!
boys--Bridger,Avery, Owen, Tristan, Cory,Brody, Justin, Porter, Morrison, Axel, Finn and Ira
girls---Natalie, Brooklyn, Penelope, Paige, Heather, Emerson, Eleanor, Beth, Jenna and Meredith
October 13th, 2013 07:03 AM #23
This is the reason I don't comment on birth announcements for twins, triplets etc. because I think 90% of them are fake. It's sad the people feel the need to invent fake children.The 3 Princesses in my life...
October 13th, 2013 02:59 PM #25
Personally, I have been surprised that Nameberry hasn't initialized a process for confirming births before now. I think the one-sock feet picture with the baby's name written on paper is a pretty ingenious idea. It preserves privacy, doesn't exclude home births, and makes photoshopping inconvenient.
It might also be worth considering leaving the Birth Announcements forum as it is, and adding a dedicated link on Nameberry allowing parents to submit their child's name directly to Pam/Linda/site administrators. This could require the foot/name photograph, or something else. If a picture were only going to the administrators and had guaranteed privacy from them -- you know, that the pictures are only for confirmation purposes and get deleted after X months or whatever, and I'm not going to load up Nameberry someday and find myself in one of the blog slide-show features or something like that -- I wouldn't object to more stringent requirements, like sending a picture of myself with the baby and the name written out. Or even a full family picture with the baby's name written out, since I have one of those large families which, while rare, are actually legit. I think it would be worthwhile to go through a screening process, because I'm afraid many people do think my large family is fake. I don't blame them; it would put up red flags for me, too -- but if the administrators approved my family's legitimacy, other Berries could know I'm not a fake while I would maintain my family's privacy. A screening process for the official blog seems both prudent and fair in my estimation.Waiting for our October girl
Georgia | Constance
Andromeda | Iolanthe | Rowenna
Boys: Ragnar | Apollos | Tor | Rigel
October 13th, 2013 03:45 PM #27
@saracita00 - I think that's an ingenious idea, but it seems like so much work! I think it would cause a lot of new mothers quite a hassle to go through all of these guidelines just to prove their birth is legit.Catalina || 18 || College Student
Girls: Augusta || Bryony || Caroline || Elizabeth || Katherine || Margaret || Rosemary || Ruth
Boys: Adrian || August || Bennett || Elliott || Ezra || Foster || Joel || Lowe || Porter || Weston
October 13th, 2013 03:53 PM #29Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- London, England
What's going to stop people to take a photo of their niece/nephew/little siblings foot and submit it?
It's sad that there are fakers, but this is the internet, it's going to happen.My darling Marian Illyria Aphrodite, March 2013 & Little Bunny (a girl!) due 9th of February 2014