Do you support a members-only subforum

Do you support a members-only aviation subforum

  • Yes, I do

    Votes: 18 39.1%

  • No, I do not

    Votes: 11 23.9%

  • I'll be happy either way

    Votes: 17 37.0%
  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
TMetzinger

TMetzinger

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
9,660
Location
Northern Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Proposal:

To have a subforum that is NOT readable/searchable by the general public or search engines. In order to read this subforum, you must be a registered member of pilots of america. The normal rules (minimum number of posts before you can submit attachments, etc) will apply to this subforum.

Reason for the proposal:
To have a place where aviation discussions may take place while limiting the potential for offending/annoying/inflaming the general public.
 
Last edited:
fwiw - I don't view such a subforum (not searchable by bots) as a bad thing or
at all elitist. Having a members-only subforum isn't the most important thing
in my life, but sure, I'd prefer to be a little more likely to contribute to some
threads without it being archived on google for ever and ever

One time an "energetic" FAA employee grabbed some of my (and others) usenet posts to use as comments on some dumb FAA initative. Very uncool.
 
TMetzinger said:
Not in my opinion - two different questions. One is a general "Do you worry about search engines" question, and this one is "do you like THIS idea?"
Click to expand...

Well, I think the first is a lead in to the second one. I see them as related. But polls are free. :D
 
I'm happy with or without the new forum. I certainly like the reasoning behind it, but I suspect that the execution may be problematic. Issues I see with it:
- People won't know which forum to look for things in.
- Our threads tend to meander quite a bit, and therefore the desirability of having it in the "protected" forum may change too. And different parts of a thread would likely fall into different categories.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Isn't this thread and poll

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27498

doing the same thing?
Click to expand...
Actually Greg we already have a members forum. Hangar Talk, Flight Following and several other forum are only available to people to post who have registered. In essence the only two forums that are available for non-members to post are Medical Matters and Lessons Learned.

Tim's poll asks a non-valid question because the question and his intent are different. He wants an additional forum that is protected from the search bots that would have potentially duplicate information in it, as Grant pointed out.

If you are writing something on PoA or any web board that you think needs to be semi-private so as to not potentially harm you if someone were to read it, then you probably should not be writing it at all on the Internet!
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Actually Greg we already have a members forum. Hangar Talk, Flight Following and several other forum are only available to people to post who have registered. In essence the only two forums that are available for non-members to post are Medical Matters and Lessons Learned.

Tim's poll asks a non-valid question because the question and his intent are different. He wants an additional forum that is protected from the search bots that would have potentially duplicate information in it, as Grant pointed out.

If you are writing something on PoA or any web board that you think needs to be semi-private so as to not potentially harm you if someone were to read it, then you probably should not be writing it at all on the Internet!
Click to expand...

Scott, don't you DARE call my poll non-valid. You've posted your opinions (ad nauseum) over in the thread for discussing it. On this poll, just answer the ****ing question as yes, no, or don't care, ok?:mad2::mad2::mad2:
 
I can see a potential problem with the users only subforum. What if someone starts a thread in the normal section then someone else wants to reply but doesn't want their reply to be Googleable. Do they then request that the whole thread be moved? What happens to the people who were reading the thread in the normal section then all of a sudden it disappears? Won't this also create a lot of work for the moderators?
 
There's less noise in this thread.

I've been a member of fora that are both publically indexed (this board, for example), ones that are private (membership only), ones that are partially-private and partially-public (public portions indexed), and some variant of both.

In my experience, there is not much difference between the content of both, and there is not much difference in the impact on users... other than the "private only" boards have somewhat less traffic (and some are "snootier"). The board that has some forums "hidden" from the search engines tends to find more users in the "hidden" fora. It also gets less traffic and is a bit less welcoming than the more open boards.

I understand both sides of the discussion, and those that know me realize that I put a high value on privacy. Personally, I can take it or leave it with respect to a non-searchable forum AS LONG AS it doesn't cause additional work for the mods.

Personally, I think that "flaming" and heated personal arguments do far more damage to a board like this than any non-searchable forum does (if you think I could be talking about you, I probably am).
 
TMetzinger said:
Scott, don't you DARE call my poll non-valid. You've posted your opinions (ad nauseum) over in the thread for discussing it. On this poll, just answer the ****ing question as yes, no, or don't care, ok?:mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

Naw, lets argue the same points on this thread too!:no:
 
I'd see no purpose to a forum being created specifically as a "members-only" forum. I don't know what "topic" that forum would be associated with.

I do see a purpose for shielding as much as possible of the forum's content from web searching. Of course, I also see a purpose for making the site visible to google, as a way of drawing in new members. And I see a purpose for a forum in which anonymous postings are possible, which precludes a requirement for registration.

So this seems to be about compromise here. I'd be happy with an approach that leaves open a few of the more "on topic" forums to searching, while cutting off the remainder.

The vBulletin software doesn't seem to form URLs that make it easy to curtail searching on a per-forum basis, e.g. via robot exclusion, though maybe there are extensions out there that facilitate this. So if, from a technical basis, the only solution to making something non-searchable is to require registration, then I'm fine with that. But, again, I don't see the point of creating one new forum solely for this purpose, but of changing the configuration of some of the existing forums.
-harry
 
smigaldi said:
Actually Greg we already have a members forum. Hangar Talk, Flight Following and several other forum are only available to people to post who have registered. In essence the only two forums that are available for non-members to post are Medical Matters and Lessons Learned.
Click to expand...

When all else fails, lie.

A non registered user viewing hangar talk:
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Picture 2.png
    Picture 2.png
    447.8 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
Actually, Scott's correct, you have to be a member to POST in those forums. Of course, that's entirely beside the point, which is to have a forum you must be a member in order to READ. I suspect Scott knows this, but perhaps not - I try never to attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

I'm done with this topic, anyway. I hope the MC gets the point of what I was suggested and I look forward to any action they take (either way).
 
TMetzinger said:
Scott, don't you DARE call my poll non-valid. You've posted your opinions (ad nauseum) over in the thread for discussing it. On this poll, just answer the ****ing question as yes, no, or don't care, ok?:mad2::mad2::mad2:
Click to expand...

I never said you poll was invalid. I said your question was.

smigaldi said:
Tim's poll asks a non-valid question because the question and his intent are different. He wants an additional forum that is protected from the search bots that would have potentially duplicate information in it, as Grant pointed out.

If you are writing something on PoA or any web board that you think needs to be semi-private so as to not potentially harm you if someone were to read it, then you probably should not be writing it at all on the Internet!
Click to expand...
A members only forum and private additional forum to the already forums is what you are asking for. I am just pointing out that your question can be read to mean something else.
 
Last edited:
Can we pleez, pleez, plleze run this thread up to 300+ replies like the other thread, pleez, pleez, pleez?

It's not like anyone here wants to talk about flying or airplanes, anyway...


Trapper John
 
smigaldi said:
Actually Greg we already have a members forum. Hangar Talk, Flight Following and several other forum are only available to people to post who have registered. In essence the only two forums that are available for non-members to post are Medical Matters and Lessons Learned.

Tim's poll asks a non-valid question because the question and his intent are different. He wants an additional forum that is protected from the search bots
Click to expand...

Which is EXACTLY what he asked for in the poll question. :rolleyes:

We're not talking about members-only posting as you're stating above, we're talking about members-only READING which we do NOT have.

Word of the day: "Obfuscation."
 
Valid question, but I don't feel the need for a "shielded" section. Just my view.
 
smigaldi said:
Tim's poll asks a non-valid question because the question and his intent are different. out.
Click to expand...
That is only correct if you disregard Tim's explanation of the question he asked.

There is a limited amount of space to use in the titles and in the poll questions. One should judge intent by the content of the post, not by the title.
 
Greebo said:
That is only correct if you disregard Tim's explanation of the question he asked.

There is a limited amount of space to use in the titles and in the poll questions. One should judge intent by the content of the post, not by the title.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why I suppose he went back and edited his first post to make his intent clearer 25 hours after he first posted the question without the detailed explanation of his intent.
 
Ah, gotcha. This is the first time I've seen this thread, so I didn't note the edit. Thanks and sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top