"Members Only" forum

[SkyHog]

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

Oh. I don't want to see that happen. What I would find acceptable would be a new forum:

"One day, at plane camp"

And in that forum, we can discuss things that we are not comfortable with the non-registered/googling folks seeing. Like the time I was with a pilot who accidentally punctured a wing at a specific airport. No reason for that person to find out who it was via google or by visiting the site for a moment.

 

[ScottM]

Oh. I don't want to see that happen. What I would find acceptable would be a new forum:

"One day, at plane camp"

And in that forum, we can discuss things that we are not comfortable with the non-registered/googling folks seeing. Like the time I was with a pilot who accidentally punctured a wing at a specific airport. No reason for that person to find out who it was via google or by visiting the site for a moment.

That is VIP room concept that so many of us seem to be against. Why create a new forum that would be hidden to talk about the same topics that are covered in the open forums? Instead just make some of the existing forums non-visible to non-registered people.

 

[gprellwitz]

That is VIP room concept that so many of us seem to be against. Why create a new forum that would be hidden to talk about the same topics that are covered in the open forums? Instead just make some of the existing forums non-visible to non-registered people.

No Scott, I disagree with that characterization. I think that we may have a semantic problem here or something.

What Nick and I and others I think are proposing at this time is 1 new forum that is set up the way your strawman has 12 forums set up. Let's call it "One day, at plane camp" for the sake of argument.

Visible if you log in:

• One day, at plane camp
• 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
• Medical Topics
• Hangar Talk and it sub forums
• Spin Zone (IF YOU'VE EXPLICITLY OPTED FOR IT)
• Technical Corner
• The Sports Section
• News
• Site Feedback and Support
• The Classifieds

You can post to any of these forums.
Registration Problems isn't visible.

If you log out (and Google-searchable):

• 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
• Medical Topics
• Hangar Talk and it sub forums
• Technical Corner
• The Sports Section
• News
• Site Feedback and Support
• The Classifieds
• Registration Problems

Spin Zone isn't visible (since you're not logged in, you couldn't possibly have opted for it)
One day, at plane camp isn't visible
You can only post to Medical Topics, Lessons Learned, and Registration Problems.

 

[ScottM]

No Scott, I disagree with that characterization. I think that we may have a semantic problem here or something.

What Nick and I and others I think are proposing at this time is 1 new forum that is set up the way your strawman has 12 forums set up. Let's call it "One day, at plane camp" for the sake of argument.

Visible if you log in:

• One day, at plane camp
• 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
• Medical Topics
• Hangar Talk and it sub forums
• Spin Zone (IF YOU'VE EXPLICITLY OPTED FOR IT)
• Technical Corner
• The Sports Section
• News
• Site Feedback and Support
• The Classifieds

You can post to any of these forums.
Registration Problems isn't visible.

If you log out (and Google-searchable):

• 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
• Medical Topics
• Hangar Talk and it sub forums
• Technical Corner
• The Sports Section
• News
• Site Feedback and Support
• The Classifieds
• Registration Problems

Spin Zone isn't visible (since you're not logged in, you couldn't possibly have opted for it)
One day, at plane camp isn't visible
You can only post to Medical Topics, Lessons Learned, and Registration Problems.

Yep this is what I have been against. The sub forum is just a private VIP room and does not solve the real problem that most everything on here is seen by the search engines.

If all you want to do is make one of the existing forum non-unsearchable or seen when not logged in I fail to see what use that really provides. Other than to confuse people into thinking that they may speak freely on PoA without fear of having their post show up on a search engine.

'One day at plane camp' would have what unique subject matter in it that is not already covered by the other forums?

I think a better way forward is to try and agree that we do not need a forum. But try to figure out what exactly is in the non-searchable, only registered user category and what is publicly viewable.

 

[ScottM]

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
Aerobatics
Home Builders and Sport Pilots
Lessons Learned 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
Cool Places to Fly and it sub forums
Medical Topics anon posting would still be allowed
Maintenance Bay

Maybe something more like this Grant?

I left the forum where we tend to be more controversial in the protected area. While moving those that tend to be good source of knowledge, likely to attract newcomers, and provide good background to people using search engines.

 

[jesse]

Personally--I would like a vetted forum. People that have only been met in person by another person that has been met in person would be permitted. An odd network of sorts.. It isn't a perfect idea (some flaws)..but would sure be nice.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Jesse- that would have kept me out. I never met anyone from POA until I moved to NE.

The only POA people I've met are those that have been to Lincoln (and not even all of those).

 

[astanley]

Personally--I would like a vetted forum. People that have only been met in person by another person that has been met in person would be permitted. An odd network of sorts.. It isn't a perfect idea (some flaws)..but would sure be nice.

+1. I'm all over the internet and have even had co-workers email me posts from mailing lists, forums, and other areas I've been active on the internet. I would consider many on this board dear friends and the ability to converse, in private, like we do at offlines. It may sound elitist, it may sound exclusionary, but it's worth it, to me.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[ScottM]

+1. I'm all over the internet and have even had co-workers email me posts from mailing lists, forums, and other areas I've been active on the internet. I would consider many on this board dear friends and the ability to converse, in private, like we do at offlines. It may sound elitist, it may sound exclusionary, but it's worth it, to me.

Cheers,

-Andrew

Let me be clear, the creation of a members only forum in addition to what we already have is not very welcoming. Creating a barrier to entry, be it posts, a live interaction, or something else is elitist IMHO.

Moving sections of the already existing forum to an off the grid, non-search-bot, section is a good idea. Those sections that should be moved off are the ones I have labeled above in my last post before this one.

That type of proposal meets the needs of those who want some privacy, still keeps parts of the forum searchable to non-members to attract them them into becoming registered users, and does not alienate new people who do join.

 

[gismo]

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.

Scott, I made that suggestion but I'm not stuck on it. It was just a thought as to a way to keep the bots out. And that's my only goal. I strongly suspect that most of the other concepts like a min post count, extra login, etc. made by others was along the same lines.

Let's just put all the implementation ideas behind us and see if any of the basic concepts could fly. Two questions for you and everyone else (pardon me if you've already answered either):

1) Would you be OK with some way to prevent a Google searches from seeing some or all posts on PoA if the method used didn't involve a minimum post count, opting in, or anything else that might appear to exclude some members?

2) If there was a way to provide the ability to shield posts from search bots on a forum basis would you accept the idea of a new forum with that ability, again assuming no elitist exclusivity?

 

[ScottM]

1) Would you be OK with some way to prevent a Google searches from seeing some or all posts on PoA if the method used didn't involve a minimum post count, opting in, or anything else that might appear to exclude some members?

yes, I have said that already

2) If there was a way to provide the ability to shield posts from search bots on a forum basis would you accept the idea of a new forum with that ability, again assuming no elitist exclusivity?

Not with a new forum. I think moving some of the existing forum behind a non-searchable shield is appropriate.

The new forum, from what I can tell, has no new charter other than it is non-searchable. I see no reason for a forum that has a duplicate charter to be created. Just move the forums you do not want visible to the search engines and non-registered behind veil or wall of security.

This is my suggestion

The strawman proposal is that the following forums are only seen by registered users, search-bots would also not see them.

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

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not only do we have calls for a special members only room basd on post history and selection, now we are seeing what some members have decided what a proper member of PoA is to be. The way to read some of the above posts is that people who do not currently fly or do not hold at least a PP certificate are not worthy of posting and their opinions should hold less sway.

BS Scott. The "qualifications" for being allowed into the "twilight zone" or whatever it gets called would have NOTHING to do with pilot certificates or any of that. ALL are welcome - As soon as they have 20 posts or however many it takes to keep the press and random Googlers out.

Already, members are required to have 5 posts before they can post attachments. Is that "elitist" too?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There has been more than this one post, there have been others in different threads. You yourself have even been attacked over your sport pilot cert as being 'less worthy'.

It's not Jay that was attacked (Jay holds a Private Pilot certificate, not a Sport Pilot certificate), it was ALL sport pilots. And it wasn't over whether or not they were "worthy" of posting here, it was over whether or not they are sufficiently trained.

BTW the same people who are now wanting the private room were the ones that stated the Purple Board was being eltitst for closing themselves off from public viewing and the search engines.

Bull****, Scott. I didn't want to have to register for the Purple Board because frankly, I get my fix here and without being able to "try before you buy" it wasn't worth it to me to add another forum.

If the members-only forum is shot down, maybe I will register for the Purple Board, because I really like sharing my flight experiences and there are many cases where I no longer feel comfortable doing that out in the open. PoA's loss, if that happens.

I'll still be happy to come over here to ***** and moan.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I agree about forming cliques but this VIP room will not include every member only those who elect to go in there. So it becomes a semi-private hangar talk. Those that do not go in will loose the ability to talk about some subjects, that is not a very welcoming type of web board. So why make the cliquishness worse?

This forum would be automatically visible to any member with >20 posts or some appropriate number to keep the press out. It would be for ANY SUBJECT, so nobody is "loosing" the ability to talk about any subject.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I would have thought so too, but apparently PoA was quoted in a story on UFOs. So I think it a real concern.

And there was another article in the aftermath of an accident that didn't specify PoA in particular, but did say "Posters on an internet message board of pilots said..." and we had been discussing that particular accident.

So you're right, it is a real concern, and is EXACTLY what I want this new forum to address!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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?

If you're going to restrict all those, you might as well restrict the whole thing. We WANT new student pilots to find us via Google searches, so "Flight Following" and "Pilot Training" should be the most visible parts of the site.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Yep this is what I have been against. The sub forum is just a private VIP room and does not solve the real problem that most everything on here is seen by the search engines.

YES IT DOES, Scott. How is Google going to a) register, and b) post?

'One day at plane camp' would have what unique subject matter in it that is not already covered by the other forums?

It would have all the stuff that people don't want Google or the press picking up on.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Lessons Learned anon posting would still be allowed

How would you allow anon posting yet still require registration?

 

[gprellwitz]

I think Kent's doing all these short replies just to up his post count so he can set a minimum of 8,000 posts!

Scott, you still have the technical problem in your [post=414005]latest strawman[/post] of having the Lessons Learned forum visible only to logged in people, but available to people who aren't logged in for the purposes of posting. That just doesn't work from a logical or practical standpoint.

And I would not support changing existing forums to require users to be logged in. I think that on the whole being well-googled is a good thing.

My support is for taking as small a portion of future threads as possible and making them available only to real people. Through the crucible of discourse, my position on this has changed, however, and I now feel that even the creation of a new forum wouldn't suffice unto itself, so I am hereby changing my vote on this proposal to the negative.

What may be desirable, but is not on the table, would be a mechanism whereby an entire thread could be "sequestered" at the request of a participant or the MC. By "sequestered" I mean that it would be moved from thread A to thread A' where one must be logged in in order to see it. A pointer would remain in thread A so a logged-in member wouldn't even know that this had happened, and someone not logged in would just see a message saying "You must log in to view this thread". I am already aware of a number of significant problems with this, which is why I say it is not on the table. First, I don't think that the VBulletin software would support it. Second, it would be an additional burden on the MC or someone to "flip the switch" on a thread. Third, until that switch was flipped, the thread would still be crawled by the search engines and would appear in their caches.

I will say that the amount of energy people spend thinking about the board and how it should be used is somewhat overwhelming. I think that Chuck and the MC should be proud that they've created a community so involved with their own governance.

Oh, and to answer Lance's questions directly:

1) Would you be OK with some way to prevent a Google searches from seeing some or all posts on PoA if the method used didn't involve a minimum post count, opting in, or anything else that might appear to exclude some members?

Yes for a minimal number of posts. In other words, I want the majority of the site to be indexed.

2) If there was a way to provide the ability to shield posts from search bots on a forum basis would you accept the idea of a new forum with that ability, again assuming no elitist exclusivity?

My new thinking is that I would accept it, but don't think that it would achieve the results we desire for it, so I would vote against it.

So for now my vote is for the status quo.

 

[Greebo]

Making almost the entire forum invisible to non-registered users would be extremely in hospitable.

Jesse - what do you know about google caching policy? If we had only one forum restricted to members only, if a thread were moved from the google searchable area to a private zone, would google keep their data on that thread cached anyway?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think Kent's doing all these short replies just to up his post count so he can set a minimum of 8,000 posts!

I haven't paid attention to my post count in a loooooooong time. I'm guessing I must be approaching 8K? I'll have to look after I post this.

The only reason I'd like a minimum post count would be to keep reporters from being able to find the "bad" stuff we talk about after accidents simply by registering and logging in. I'd be OK with 5 or even maybe 2 (since many people get 1 post by virtue of posting in the "Registration Problems" thread to finish activating their registration).

And I would not support changing existing forums to require users to be logged in. I think that on the whole being well-googled is a good thing.

Agreed. I hope we can continue to help aspiring pilots along their journey, and Google is how they will find us. So I fully support leaving the existing forums open to Google.

My support is for taking as small a portion of future threads as possible and making them available only to real people. Through the crucible of discourse, my position on this has changed, however, and I now feel that even the creation of a new forum wouldn't suffice unto itself, so I am hereby changing my vote on this proposal to the negative.

What may be desirable, but is not on the table, would be a mechanism whereby an entire thread could be "sequestered" at the request of a participant or the MC. By "sequestered" I mean that it would be moved from thread A to thread A' where one must be logged in in order to see it. A pointer would remain in thread A so a logged-in member wouldn't even know that this had happened, and someone not logged in would just see a message saying "You must log in to view this thread". I am already aware of a number of significant problems with this, which is why I say it is not on the table. First, I don't think that the VBulletin software would support it. Second, it would be an additional burden on the MC or someone to "flip the switch" on a thread. Third, until that switch was flipped, the thread would still be crawled by the search engines and would appear in their caches.

I've talked with Jesse about this at length, long before even requesting the private forum. Basically, having individual threads marked as "private" vs. "public", while theoretically possible, would be a technical nightmare and is thus effectively impossible for a volunteer-run site to implement. That is why I'm asking for the private forum instead, which would not be overly difficult to implement. In fact, if we set the minimum post count to 5 to match the number of posts before someone is allowed to post attachments, I suspect that would make it even easier (though I'm not sure exactly how the security on the site is set up).

So for now my vote is for the status quo.

There clearly exists an issue, the status quo does nothing to even attempt to solve it.

 

[Greebo]

There clearly exists an issue, the status quo does nothing to even attempt to solve it.

This assumes that a solution is required, something not yet clearly established in my mind.

The fact is we get new users register every day. People post, every day. Some people care about what they post showing up on google, others don't. Do enough people want a google-proof sub-forum to merit a change being made by the MC? I don't know - I think that question needs to be addressed first.

 

[ScottM]

This forum would be automatically visible to any member with >20 posts or some appropriate number to keep the press out. It would be for ANY SUBJECT, so nobody is "loosing" the ability to talk about any subject.

Well I thought that maybe we were getting closer to a consensus, but I was wrong. There is still a call for level of postings, and still a call for a private elite room.

I tried to come with a strawman that meets the needs of privacy while still trying to achieve Chuck's goal of visibility to pilot community. But it seems that some people are just wanting their own little part of the Internet and will not compromise at all until they get their club house. The way things are is fine with me. And if it is a choice of a the VIP room for the kids who are too cool to post with the rest of PoA or keep things the way they are I will vote to keep things they way they are. I think the suggestion for the VIP room is destructive to the front porch atmosphere here and I am not the only who feels that way. Oterhs have posted the sentiment as well.

 

[ScottM]

Scott, you still have the technical problem in your [post=414005]latest strawman[/post] of having the Lessons Learned forum visible only to logged in people, but available to people who aren't logged in for the purposes of posting. That just doesn't work from a logical or practical standpoint.

I see your point.

And I would not support changing existing forums to require users to be logged in. I think that on the whole being well-googled is a good thing.

My support is for taking as small a portion of future threads as possible and making them available only to real people. Through the crucible of discourse, my position on this has changed, however, and I now feel that even the creation of a new forum wouldn't suffice unto itself, so I am hereby changing my vote on this proposal to the negative.

i am not sure the is possible without the creation of a new forum. The VIP hangar talk/

What may be desirable, but is not on the table, would be a mechanism whereby an entire thread could be "sequestered" at the request of a participant or the MC. By "sequestered" I mean that it would be moved from thread A to thread A' where one must be logged in in order to see it. A pointer would remain in thread A so a logged-in member wouldn't even know that this had happened, and someone not logged in would just see a message saying "You must log in to view this thread". I am already aware of a number of significant problems with this, which is why I say it is not on the table. First, I don't think that the VBulletin software would support it. Second, it would be an additional burden on the MC or someone to "flip the switch" on a thread. Third, until that switch was flipped, the thread would still be crawled by the search engines and would appear in their caches.

Is that even a possibility with the software we have?

I will say that the amount of energy people spend thinking about the board and how it should be used is somewhat overwhelming. I think that Chuck and the MC should be proud that they've created a community so involved with their own governance.

They should be but my money is that some of them are reacting in a defensive manner aand think we are out to wrest control form them.

So for now my vote is for the status quo.

I'll second that.

 

[SkyHog]

Well I thought that maybe we were getting closer to a consensus, but I was wrong. There is still a call for level of postings, and still a call for a private elite room.

I tried to come with a strawman that meets the needs of privacy while still trying to achieve Chuck's goal of visibility to pilot community. But it seems that some people are just wanting their own little part of the Internet and will not compromise at all until they get their club house. The way things are is fine with me. And if it is a choice of a the VIP room for the kids who are too cool to post with the rest of PoA or keep things the way they are I will vote to keep things they way they are. I think the suggestion for the VIP room is destructive to the front porch atmosphere here and I am not the only who feels that way. Oterhs have posted the sentiment as well.

The problem, Scott, is that your consensus is basically what you want vs. what a lot of other people want. Group compromise doesn't work that way.

What you're suggesting is what you advocated against in the first few pages of this thread: essentially hiding everything from non-members. What some people are suggesting is to allow everything but one forum to non-members.

The content that goes into that forum would be anything the public need not know. Realistically, most people are not going to register to view a single post.

The secret lies in making sure people don't make that forum the default place to post stuff....even maybe looking at having the MC move non-logical posts out of it. I know, more work for the MC.

I'm not sold on the idea yet, myself, but it would be nice to be able to post things from time to time without worrying about what my employer, my girlfriend, my roommate, etc. reads.

And a consensus is an agreement among a group, not a placation of one person.

 

[jmaynard]

I give up. It's obvious that some folks are going to repeatedly misinterpret whatever others are saying that doesn't match their worldview, no matter how many times it's pointed out they're doing so.

We'll be poorer for it, too, since I'll be surprised if the clear need for a place that isn't Googled actually turns into anything, due to the misguided objections of a few, and many others will self-censor so their words don't come back to haunt them later.

It's not about VIP status. It's about being able to talk at all about some things.

 

[SkyHog]

I'll second that.

I see what you're doing now, Scott, and it didn't make sense to me in any way shape or form until now.

Its disingenuous, dishonest, and plain out wrong, and I think you should apologize to all of PoA for trying to play us. Its irresponsible to do so.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[ScottM]

The problem, Scott, is that your consensus is basically what you want vs. what a lot of other people want. Group compromise doesn't work that way.

What you're suggesting is what you advocated against in the first few pages of this thread: essentially hiding everything from non-members. What some people are suggesting is to allow everything but one forum to non-members.

how can you honestly say that when I have shown several of forums to be available to people who are not registered? Did you not even read the strawman? I have even said I was open to moving things around on the strawman. I put it forward for draft and comment. What I got were a few comments and an attack from Kent.

The content that goes into that forum would be anything the public need not know. Realistically, most people are not going to register to view a single post.

The secret lies in making sure people don't make that forum the default place to post stuff....even maybe looking at having the MC move non-logical posts out of it. I know, more work for the MC.

I'm not sold on the idea yet, myself, but it would be nice to be able to post things from time to time without worrying about what my employer, my girlfriend, my roommate, etc. reads.

And a consensus is an agreement among a group, not a placation of one person.

Which is why I am trying to get a consenus. Consenus is also not the tryanny of a few either. So far it seems that I am one of the only ones willing to compromise. Kent's demand to still have a private room with minum post count to enter is exactly what he has demanding since his first post in this thread. Since he is not willing to compromise one iota I think the whole idea is DOA.

I'll withdraw the strawman compromise I put forward and reinterate that I am fine with the way things are now.

 

[ScottM]

I see what you're doing now, Scott, and it didn't make sense to me in any way shape or form until now.

Its disingenuous, dishonest, and plain out wrong, and I think you should apologize to all of PoA for trying to play us. Its irresponsible to do so.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes I should be ashamed. Thank you oh Nick the magnificant for pointing out the error of my ways!

I have an opinion and I am not one of those on PoA who apparently is allowed to have a viewpoint.

I beg your forgiveness oh great cool people of PoA, how could I have ever thought that I was able to be with the gods of this forum who have given so much of their lives and time to protection of the unwashed pilot masses.

As I genuflect in the direction of the Holy PoA server in Lincoln, NE I beseech you to not smite me down.






pffffttttt!!!!!

 

[ScottM]

I give up. It's obvious that some folks are going to repeatedly misinterpret whatever others are saying that doesn't match their worldview, no matter how many times it's pointed out they're doing so.

We'll be poorer for it, too, since I'll be surprised if the clear need for a place that isn't Googled actually turns into anything, due to the misguided objections of a few, and many others will self-censor so their words don't come back to haunt them later.

It's not about VIP status. It's about being able to talk at all about some things.

Jay if all we need is a google proof area then move Hangar Talk into it. We do not need a special room or min post count. I know you have not asked for that but Kent keeps raising it as a requirement.

 

[SkyHog]

Hey guys, let me intentionally misinterpret what you are suggesting for about 5 pages, if not longer, so that no one really understands what the main idea was at all anymore.

Then, after I've confused a good chunk of you, I'll come up with a completely unplausible idea, and try to make it look like that was what we all decided was best to begin with.

Then, after people start to think that really was what they were talking about in the first place, pull back and vote for status quo. That way, its "Unplausible idea vs. Status quo," not "Reasonable ideas vs. Status quo."

And then I can be indignant about it when someone points out what I'm doing.

 

[ScottM]

"Unplausible idea vs. Status quo," not "Reasonable ideas vs. Status quo."

And then I can be indignant about it when someone points out what I'm doing.

No Nick I am indignant about you misinterpreting what I tried to do. Which was to try to find something that worked for all view points. I am also indignant that after all of the talk from people stating that the minimum post idea was dead that Kent comes back and proposes exactly that idea again.

I repeat pffffttt

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I'll say it again: A minimum post count, enabled to try to prevent unwanted publication of some posts, is completely pointless. On the one hand, it's completely unnecessary to stop search engine caching. On the other, any reporter or other actual human interested in viewing the "hidden" material could easily come up with 5 posts to view it (and a number any higher than about 5 starts to get into "VIP-club" territory.)

A 5-post minimum makes sense to prevent attachment-containing spam, but applying the same logic to this issue doesn't make any sense. So forget "elitism", forget "cliquishness", forget all that: It's a bad idea for plenty of other reasons.

 

[gismo]

I have an opinion and I am not one of those on PoA who apparently is allowed to have a viewpoint.

I for one have no problem with your opinion or your being allowed to have one, but there is one constant theme in your posts on this thread I just plain don't understand. And that's the part where you seem to keep equating any and all ideas that involve a new (Goggleproof) forum with elitism. It sure looks to me that very few if any others here believe that those two concepts are joined at the hip and every attempt by those proposing such a forum has been met with a complete refusal by you (and AFaIK, you alone) to believe their stated motives. That said, if Slappy's correct it's a moot point but I'm not there yet either.

pffffttttt!!!!!

Well I can agree with that

 

[jmaynard]

It sure looks to me that very few if any others here believe that those two concepts are joined at the hip and every attempt by those proposing such a forum has been met with a complete refusal by you (and AFaIK, you alone) to believe their stated motives.

+1, including the head banging on the wall.

 

[TMetzinger]

+1, including the head banging on the wall.

+2. All I ever asked for (And I'm the one who started the idea when we were talking about ColganAir) was a place where members (ANY real member) could talk about aviation without it being open to the public.

Minimum post count? 5 works for me, whatever the consensus (reflected via a poll or MC fiat) is to ensure that spambots don't get in.

Elitist - you betcha. All us POA members are elite compared to the public at large.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I think that if the argument is that people may want to Google for some specific information about flying and find posts here as particularly useful, and then choose to join the community once they have found us, then we *may* be holding ourselves in too high regard

There should be a way to leave the front door with keywords for the bots, but require a logon before actually viewing the threads.

 

[Everskyward]

All I ever asked for (And I'm the one who started the idea when we were talking about ColganAir) was a place where members (ANY real member) could talk about aviation without it being open to the public.

I just think that gives you a false sense of security about what you can talk about. The board is still open to the public because anyone from the public can become a member. What are we trying to hide anyway? If it's something confidential that you don't want anyone to know about except for a select group of people, maybe it's a good idea not to post it in a forum at all. If it's of the pilots-sometimes-do-dumb-things variety, that's just reality and I see no reason to hide it.

 

[Trapper John]

There should be a way to leave the front door with keywords for the bots, but require a logon before actually viewing the threads.

Keywords? Like 'magenta line of death' ?


Trapper John

 

[TMetzinger]

I just think that gives you a false sense of security about what you can talk about. The board is still open to the public because anyone from the public can become a member. What are we trying to hide anyway? If it's something confidential that you don't want anyone to know about except for a select group of people, maybe it's a good idea not to post it in a forum at all. If it's of the pilots-sometimes-do-dumb-things variety, that's just reality and I see no reason to hide it.

My experience differs. I've specifically been made aware that a post I made regarding a crash caused someone else unnecessary pain. The post was correct, accurate, and I stand/stood behind it. But because a loved one was googling on the incident and saw my post, they were hurt (by the truth), to my regret. I see no reason not to at least make an attempt to avoid this in the future.