"Members Only" forum

[jesse]

IMO, I think the kind of "privacy" some folks are alluding to (i.e. keeping reporters or investigators or anybody else with an interest in knowing what's written on a web board) is a bridge too far... Anybody who's determined to find a post on a web board is going to find it unless there are some incredibly draconian steps taken. And I don't think anybody really wants that.

If, on the other hand, the goal is to limit the kind of exposure that search engines provide massive amounts of, a "Logged In Users Only" forum makes sense if the robots route is insufficient or less than optimal.

The intent isn't to stop a really determined person. These people that have found this stuff and caused some pain weren't determined. They usually just googled a name or tail number and stumbled into it by luck.

 

[ScottM]

No, that isn't what they're asking for.

They want a forum that is invisible to anyone who isn't registered. That's all. Log out, and it vanishes. Log in, there it is. No post counts needed.

Then take the forum off of the search engine grid, again I am ok with that as I have said in previous posts. But I am not ok with the creation of a sub forum that is private and opt in. We do not need a public Hangar Talk and a VIP HT.

 

[jesse]

Which is why *I* mentioned that the Google issue was the issue in almost everyone of my notes. Honestly Jesse I think a few people are making this into some big deal. It started with, oh I dunno, someone calling for a 1000 post minimum before they would be allowed into the VIP room. Who was that again???

If it were up to me--there would be at least a 1,000 post minimum with a maximum post count of 14,260.

 

[jmaynard]

We do not need a public Hangar Talk and a VIP HT.

Scott, nobody is saying it needs to be a VIP forum!

Jesse is joking.

I say again: Jesse is joking. Badly, but he's joking.

Seriously, is this your ONLY objection? That you think it would require some large number of posts to gain entrance? Even in the face of repeated posts saying just the opposite?

 

[ReverendSlappy]

The intent isn't to stop a really determined person. These people that have found this stuff and caused some pain weren't determined. They usually just googled a name or tail number and stumbled into it by luck.

Right, and that makes perfect sense... To stop somebody who's really determined is virtually impossible (minus completely changing the entire nature of the board.)

Then take the forum off of the search engine grid, again I am ok with that as I have said in previous posts. But I am not ok with the creation of a sub forum that is private and opt in. We do not need a public Hangar Talk and a VIP HT.

I don't think it even needs to be "private and opt-in." What Chuck describes makes sense to me; I don't think a minimum post requirement or minimum membership-time requirement or any other measure like that is really being seriously considered (is it?), nor do I think it'd really "work" in any real practical sense anyway.

 

[ScottM]

Scott, nobody is saying it needs to be a VIP forum!

NOBODY!

There may have been one joke post to that effect, but it was just that, a JOKE!

Please drop this red herring. It doesn't become you to be so determinedly clueless.

Post #2

I'd prefer a members only forum with a minimum of 1,000 posts to read it. Of course, we would heavily discourage new membership by doing so...which is ok with me..new people are annoying.

Post #5

Jesse,

I'm not talking making the entire board members only - Just a new forum (a la "Closed Hangar Talk" or somesuch) that's members only. That way we should still have plenty of content in the new forum. I wouldn't mind a minimum post count too, but 1000 is way too high. More like in the 20-100 range. That would keep curious reporters out as well as Google.

Post #6

I too think it's a good idea, though I'd put the count closer to 250.

The whole conversation started with not one, not two, but three people wanting to create a room for elite posters with a high post count. I see no one joking in their posts.

Elite:

• a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status
• elect: selected as the best; "an elect circle of artists"; "elite colleges"
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

• Elite could easily be construed to mean a class with a superior post count. Elite, VIP, whatever noun you wish to use, it is unwlecoming sets up for a barrier to new folks, and is not the way that PoA was originally set up. With this type of room you Jay would not have been welcomed in it. Do you think you would have stuck around if there had been such a room?

 

[mikea]

Yeah, like some reporter wanting to earn an Edward R. Murrow award is going to quote an anonymous poster on a web board.
..

Those UFO doofs - not journalists by any means - did exactly that. They quoted a sarcastic message as "proof," and such is their usual MO.

 

[Greebo]

Then take the forum off of the search engine grid, again I am ok with that as I have said in previous posts. But I am not ok with the creation of a sub forum that is private and opt in. We do not need a public Hangar Talk and a VIP HT.

Scott:

It would not be opt in. It would only require you to be registered. That's it.

You've been campaigning against something nobody has proposed...this isn't the Fairness Doctrine we're talking about here.

 

[Greebo]

The moment I saw Jesse's 1000 post requirement, I knew he was joking, and I was 99% certain he was having a joke at someone in particular's expense...

 

[ReverendSlappy]

this isn't the Fairness Doctrine we're talking about here.

 

[ScottM]

Scott:

It would not be opt in. It would only require you to be registered. That's it.

You've been campaigning against something nobody has proposed...this isn't the Fairness Doctrine we're talking about here.

I showed above Kent clearly stated he wanted a "Closed Hangar Talk" section.

See post #5

Jesse,

I'm not talking making the entire board members only - Just a new forum (a la "Closed Hangar Talk" or somesuch) that's members only. That way we should still have plenty of content in the new forum. I wouldn't mind a minimum post count too, but 1000 is way too high. More like in the 20-100 range. That would keep curious reporters out as well as Google.

An elite, VIP room for people with special amount of post. Grant 2nd'ed the idea. Jesse said it too, but you can never tell is he being a smart ass or serious, the lack of smilies and the follow ups by Kent and Grant show that people were taking his idea seriously.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I showed above Kent clearly stated he wanted a "Closed Hangar Talk" section. An elite, VIP room for people with special amount of post. Grant 2nd'ed the idea. Jesse said it too, but you can never tell is he being a smart ass or serious, the lack of smilies and the follow ups by Kent and Grant show that people were taking his idea seriously.

Well, lemme just say that if anybody was seriously considering that option, it's my opinion that some kind of post requirement is a horrible idea -- if for no other reason than the fact that it goes way beyond addressing the problem at hand and doesn't come close to addressing more extensive concerns about "privacy" (which I put in quotes because it's pretty ridiculous to expect anything resembling same when one's on the, you know, freaking interwebs. )

Anyway, being pretty ambivalent about it myself, I think if there's some kind of formal proposal/consideration/adoption process, that the proposal should at most be what Chuck described and not anything more.

 

[ScottM]

You've been campaigning against something nobody has proposed...this isn't the Fairness Doctrine we're talking about here.

Well you sound as misinformed on the thread as the person who does bring up the FD. But then I thought you just said earlier in this thread that

I really don't think we need to examine in depth what's going on in SZ, good or bad, here in this thread. .

So why are you now bringing up SZ stuff again?

 

[ScottM]

Anyway, being pretty ambivalent about it myself, I think if there's some kind of formal proposal/consideration/adoption process, that the proposal should at most be what Chuck described and not anything more.

I agree with that. I have said so earlier in this thread too.

 

[Greebo]

I showed above Kent clearly stated he wanted a "Closed Hangar Talk" section.

See post #5


An elite, VIP room for people with special amount of post. Grant 2nd'ed the idea. Jesse said it too, but you can never tell is he being a smart ass or serious, the lack of smilies and the follow ups by Kent and Grant show that people were taking his idea seriously.

I thought the whole "post count" discussion was settled already.

I was responding to this:

View Post
Then take the forum off of the search engine grid, again I am ok with that as I have said in previous posts. But I am not ok with the creation of a sub forum that is private and opt in. We do not need a public Hangar Talk and a VIP HT.

It would not be opt in. It would only require you to be registered. That's it.

Would you please make up your mind what it is you're protesting? First it's opt in, then it's post count.

And I STILL don't like hte idea anyway, regardless! The one thing I *always* wanted PoA to be was highly visible. In no small part because AOPA's forums were the opposite.

 

[ScottM]

And I STILL don't like hte idea anyway, regardless! The one thing I *always* wanted PoA to be was highly visible. In no small part because AOPA's forums were the opposite.

I have made up my mind. I have been clear that the creation of a sub forum with any sort of extra registration is wrong. Make the forum all of one thing or the other. I can live with it either way.

 

[Greebo]

I have made up my mind. I have been clear that the creation of a sub forum with any sort of extra registration is wrong. Make the forum all of one thing or the other. I can live with it either way.

What do you mean by "extra registration"? I know you think you're being clear, but you are using terms that I am fairly certain have different meanings in your mind than they do to those of us who know how vBulletin works and the vBulletin lingo.

 

[ScottM]

What do you mean by "extra registration"? I know you think you're being clear, but you are using terms that I am fairly certain have different meanings in your mind than they do to those of us who know how vBulletin works and the vBulletin lingo.

There was a suggestion, I think by Lance, to make this private room something that you would have to opt into like Spin Zone. That is what I am referring to.

No need to create a special room, just make most or all of PoA off of the search grid. Perhaps leave NEWS and CLASSIFIEDS for the search bots to find.

 

[gprellwitz]

We already have to register to get on the site except for the Medical and lesson learned room. So we already have what you are calling for. I can live with the status quo as well.

No, you have to register in order to POST. And you have to post more than five messages before you can ATTACH. You do not even need to log in to read any post. The exception being the SZ, where you must be a logged-in member who has stated that they want to participate.

 

[ScottM]

No, you have to register in order to POST. And you have to post more than five messages before you can ATTACH. You do not even need to log in to read any post. The exception being the SZ, where you must be a logged-in member who has stated that they want to participate.

Thanks Grant I meant post. Your right you can read without being registered. You could only post in Medical of Lessons Learned without registering

 

[ScottM]

The thing is, the way Kent described it in the first place it did sound like a VIP room.

The idea that you need to trust someone first, then let them in sounds cliquish to me. Maybe the whole idea has changed since that post a few pages ago but that's how it struck me at first.

People are still going to need to be careful about what they post. After all, this is the internet. Someone could easily take what you post and paste it into a more public site. I belong to a forum that is not only members only, but they need to be vetted and there is a fee, and people still know enough not to post too much detail.

I agree Mari.

I think the what we need is for the MC to actually get involved and say No this is not happening at all. OR yes and have them list what the strawman idea is. What Chuck has proposed may be a good starting point. The minimum post count Special HT room stuff should not be used as a baseline description.

 

[jmaynard]

Scott, first: In case it's not obvious from the fact I went back and changed it, I apologize for the language you quoted. It was a product of frustration, not of reasoned debate.

Second, you cite posts numbered lower than 10 in this thread. We're now at 182 posts. You're arguing things nobody is seriously supporting any more. Nobody wants a VIP forum. The discussion now is just over a forum that is only open to registered members. No opt in, no minimum post count, nothing else along those lines.

Your argument is that it's a slippery slope. For that to fly, you must first demonstrate that the slope is indeed slippery. I'm pretty sure the discussion in this long thread shows that it's not.

 

[ScottM]

Second, you cite posts numbered lower than 10 in this thread. We're now at 182 posts. You're arguing things nobody is seriously supporting any more. Nobody wants a VIP forum. The discussion now is just over a forum that is only open to registered members. No opt in, no minimum post count, nothing else along those lines.

Except that this morning that was exactly what had been asked for

The request was for one small section of this message board to be restricted to members only.

I like the idea of making everything BUT 'News' and 'Classifieds' private from the search bots. But I do not like the idea of a small private section of the site.

I think it is really time for the MC to pony up and earn their money They need to tell us if they will consider an idea and to draft a baseline of the proposal.

I am pretty sure that we are all in agreement that it is desirable to reduce the visibility of PoA to the search engines. There are still some people who want PoA to be seen by Google to attract new users. I think we are split on the idea of a private sub-forum, quasi-private hangar talk, etc. I and few other are against it, but some others are for it.

 

[ScottM]

There's nothing in your company's marketing bio about you being a pilot?


Trapper John

Nope, nothing in there at all. There is one other place they might have gotten it form but I really have to put on a thick TFH to think that was the case. Much easier for one of his staff to Google me.

 

[jmaynard]

Second, you cite posts numbered lower than 10 in this thread. We're now at 182 posts. You're arguing things nobody is seriously supporting any more. Nobody wants a VIP forum. The discussion now is just over a forum that is only open to registered members. No opt in, no minimum post count, nothing else along those lines.

Except that this morning that was exactly what had been asked for

The request was for one small section of this message board to be restricted to members only.

Looks to me like Tom's asking for just what I said: "a forum that is only open to registered members. No opt in, no minimum post count, nothing else along those lines." Tom didn't mention opting in, or a minimum post count, or anything else. He's not asking for a VIP forum.

I think it is really time for the MC to pony up and earn their money They need to tell us if they will consider an idea and to draft a baseline of the proposal.

I agree that that might change the character of the discussion, if only by putting to bed old, discarded ideas once and for all.

 

[gprellwitz]

I showed above Kent clearly stated he wanted a "Closed Hangar Talk" section.

See post #5


An elite, VIP room for people with special amount of post. Grant 2nd'ed the idea. Jesse said it too, but you can never tell is he being a smart ass or serious, the lack of smilies and the follow ups by Kent and Grant show that people were taking his idea seriously.

Scott, if it helps, I hereby rescind my idea of having a high post count. I hadn't intended it to be cliquish, but can see how you might take it as such and I apologize. The one possibility I might offer is that we treat it the same way we treat attachments whereby the person needs to have 5 posts, and my reasoning for this is similar to Kent's.

I am against having an additional opt-in, and don't believe that was entertained by many or for long.

I am very much against the idea of excluding the site as a whole from search for some of the same reasons as Chuck is.

 

[Trapper John]

Nope, nothing in there at all. There is one other place they might have gotten it form but I really have to put on a thick TFH to think that was the case. Much easier for one of his staff to Google me.

Just be glad they didn't find your posts about pantyhose!

That could have been awkward...


Trapper John

 

[ScottM]

Scott, if it helps, I hereby rescind my idea of having a high post count. I hadn't intended it to be cliquish, but can see how you might take it as such and I apologize. The one possibility I might offer is that we treat it the same way we treat attachments whereby the person needs to have 5 posts, and my reasoning for this is similar to Kent's.

I am against having an additional opt-in, and don't believe that was entertained by many or for long.

I am very much against the idea of excluding the site as a whole from search for some of the same reasons as Chuck is.

I would say that you and I are now in agreement and have come to a consensus.

 

[ScottM]

Just be glad they didn't find your posts about pantyhose!

That could have been awkward...


Trapper John

Knowing the Chinese it would have simplified the gift they gave me!!

I might have gotten this
http://www.e-mancipate.net/

instead of binoculars.

 

[TMetzinger]

Looks to me like Tom's asking for just what I said: "a forum that is only open to registered members. No opt in, no minimum post count, nothing else along those lines." Tom didn't mention opting in, or a minimum post count, or anything else. He's not asking for a VIP forum.


I agree that that might change the character of the discussion, if only by putting to bed old, discarded ideas once and for all.

Yes, TIM (not Tom) was never asking for a minimum post count. And I'd be just as happy with what Scott suggested about them all being members-only except a couple more "public" ones.

I never really caught on to the fact that Scott was worried about having "multiple classes" or "VIPs". That wasn't my intention at all.

 

[ScottM]

Yes, TIM (not Tom) was never asking for a minimum post count. And I'd be just as happy with what Scott suggested about them all being members-only except a couple more "public" ones.

I never really caught on to the fact that Scott was worried about having "multiple classes" or "VIPs". That wasn't my intention at all.

Good, I think we are starting to come to a consensus.
Tim, I really thought that you meant a special room. Indeed your comment this morning about a "small section" fed that belief. But it was Kent that first brought it up early in this thread and got me concerned about it.

The strawman I think we are drawing towards is that the following forums are only seen by registered users.

Flight Following
Pilot Training
Cleared for the Approach
Maintenance Bay
Aerobatics
Cool Places to Fly and it sub forums
Home Builders and Sport Pilots
Lessons Learned anon posting would still be allowed
Medical Topics anon posting would still be allowed
Hangar Talk and it sub forums
Technical Corner
The Sports Section

The following forums would be seen my non-registered users and search-bot available

News
Site Feedback and Support
The Classifieds

I added the Site feedback into the non-registered viewable just in case someone has a registration or log in issue this would be the place they should post. I think the MC already allows non-verified people to post there?

Also the sub forum in Hangar Talk, The Spin Zone remains an opt in forum.


Other comments?

 

[skyflyer8]

I'll chime in that I wish this site were more Google-proofed.

For example, here is what I got as one search result. Google obviously chops up text and puts it back together. What the.... ROTFL

What is the deal with Blackhawk Airport (87Y)? - Pilots of America ...11 posts - Last post: May 5, 2008No, the Kate Bernard Airpark Owned and Operated by Kent Shook ... Kate Bernard Comm/Inst ASEL & AMEL, CFII www.airspeedalive.com ...
www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15000 - 102k - Cached - Similar pages -

 

[KennyFlys]

Scott, don't pull punches. You're not going to hurt my feelings. But, if you had any sense of class you would keep the SZ issues in the Spin Zone. Accuse me of whatever you wish. But, do so where appropriate.

 

[Trapper John]

Scott, don't pull punches. You're not going to hurt my feelings. But, if you had any sense of class you would keep the SZ issues in the Spin Zone. Accuse me of whatever you wish. But, do so where appropriate.

That's funny, I didn't see where anyone mentioned your name...


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

That's funny, I didn't see where anyone mentioned your name...


Trapper John

Perhaps he's too much of a coward to do so. Ask him.

 

[Trapper John]

Perhaps he's too much of a coward to do so. Ask him.

This would probably be a good time to plead the 5th, you're incriminating yourself...


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

This would probably be a good time to plead the 5th, you're incriminating yourself...


Trapper John

John or whoever the hell you are... I really don't care. I'm finding I have better things to do than putting up with a bunch of cry babies; you among them.

 

[SkyHog]

Good, I think we are starting to come to a consensus.
Tim, I really thought that you meant a special room. Indeed your comment this morning about a "small section" fed that belief. But it was Kent that first brought it up early in this thread and got me concerned about it.

The strawman I think we are drawing towards is that the following forums are only seen by registered users.

Flight Following
Pilot Training
Cleared for the Approach
Maintenance Bay
Aerobatics
Cool Places to Fly and it sub forums
Home Builders and Sport Pilots
Lessons Learned anon posting would still be allowed
Medical Topics anon posting would still be allowed
Hangar Talk and it sub forums
Technical Corner
The Sports Section

The following forums would be seen my non-registered users and search-bot available

News
Site Feedback and Support
The Classifieds

I added the Site feedback into the non-registered viewable just in case someone has a registration or log in issue this would be the place they should post. I think the MC already allows non-verified people to post there?

Also the sub forum in Hangar Talk, The Spin Zone remains an opt in forum.


Other comments?

Interesting. I guess I'm hacking when I view Flight Following without logging in....for proof:

also:

 

[ScottM]

Interesting. I guess I'm hacking when I view Flight Following without logging in....for proof:


also:

Nick the strawman is a PROPOSAL it is not what we have now, but what we would like to have. So of course right now you can see FF without logging in. No one is claiming otherwise.

Go sit with Kenny for a while

 

[gprellwitz]

Scott:
A couple of comments.
1) I don't think that it is technically possible to have a section (e.g. Medical Matters) both viewable only to registered users and available for anonymous postings.
2) I would disagree with making all those areas available only to registered users. I believe the proposal is a VERY FEW number (only one?) of NEW forum(s) that would require the person to be logged in to see them.