"Members Only" forum

[Everskyward]

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.

This may sound a little callous, but if someone is Googling about an airplane crash, especially a high profile one, they can probably expect to find something negative. I guess they shouldn't read the papers or watch TV either.

 

[TMetzinger]

Who said it was high profile? My point is simply to avoid inflicting unnecessary pain.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Keywords? Like 'magenta line of death' ?


Trapper John

Well, I was thinking about the keywords we already have in our METAdata.

AD,AIM,AME,FAR,aircraft,airport,america,aopa,approach,aviation,aviation statistics,eaa,examiner,faa,flight,ifr,instrument,medical,n-numbers,ntsb,pilot,registration,regulation,student,training,united states,us,weather,VFR,plane,airplane,aerobatic,flying

 

[Everskyward]

My point is simply to avoid inflicting unnecessary pain.

My point is that if you are searching for information on an accident of a friend or loved one you can probably expect to find something painful.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

Scott,

How can you be visible to the pilot community if you hide all the aviation-related forums?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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.

Scott,

It's not possible to make a "google proof" area without requiring registration. Is that "elitist?" Gee, I hope not.

Yes, I would like to see a *small* minimum post count, not to keep aviators out, but to keep random members of the general public who are not friends of GA out. Reporters, "Stop the Noise" types, etc. Note that the numbers I suggested were "20-100" and "5" and "as low as 2." That is NOT elitist - Elitist is "you can't get into our private club until you pay us $10,000, stand on your head, and pledge allegiance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster." This is not that. This is "We'd love to let you in - All you have to do is walk up, say hi, and tell us your name."

You are clearly against the idea, which is fine. Your tactic of repeatedly associating the idea with a word that clearly goes counter to the philosophy of PoA *AND the idea being presented* so that you can raise as big of a stink as possible and try to move fence-sitters to your side is bogus. It reminds me of my high school debate class, where I would always manage to associate the opposing team's ideas with steps leading to nuclear war.

I am trying to debate this idea by stating the reasons behind all of its pieces, including the minimum post count. You seem to be unable to do anything but yell "ELITIST! ELITIST!" which leads me to believe that you cannot come up with reasons better than mine. If anything, I believe your idea of shutting off most of the site (and the relevant parts, at that) to the very door that brings us new members (Google) is MORE elitist than my idea of having a very small section of the site be not quite as easily accessible, while leaving the vast majority of the site open to the entire world.

You also mention me "attacking you" which, if true, was unintentional. I am simply attempting to attack your idea that my idea is elitist.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

My point is that if you are searching for information on an accident of a friend or loved one you can probably expect to find something painful.

Au contraire, Mari - I can see a pilot's loved ones trying to find other pilots saying something like "he was a hero for avoiding houses and saving lives on the ground" only to come here and find us all saying "what kind of frickin' idiot was this guy?" Those left behind will try to grasp any straws they can, and may not think much in advance about what they'll find.

Frankly, I think most of our discussions about the various accidents are probably harmful to GA and the entire aviation industry when viewed by non-members.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Scott,

It's not possible to make a "google proof" area without requiring registration. Is that "elitist?" Gee, I hope not.

Yes, I would like to see a *small* minimum post count, not to keep aviators out, but to keep random members of the general public who are not friends of GA out. Reporters, "Stop the Noise" types, etc. Note that the numbers I suggested were "20-100" and "5" and "as low as 2." That is NOT elitist - Elitist is "you can't get into our private club until you pay us $10,000, stand on your head, and pledge allegiance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster." This is not that. This is "We'd love to let you in - All you have to do is walk up, say hi, and tell us your name."

You are clearly against the idea, which is fine. Your tactic of repeatedly associating the idea with a word that clearly goes counter to the philosophy of PoA *AND the idea being presented* so that you can raise as big of a stink as possible and try to move fence-sitters to your side is bogus. It reminds me of my high school debate class, where I would always manage to associate the opposing team's ideas with steps leading to nuclear war.

I am trying to debate this idea by stating the reasons behind all of its pieces, including the minimum post count. You seem to be unable to do anything but yell "ELITIST! ELITIST!" which leads me to believe that you cannot come up with reasons better than mine. If anything, I believe your idea of shutting off most of the site (and the relevant parts, at that) to the very door that brings us new members (Google) is MORE elitist than my idea of having a very small section of the site be not quite as easily accessible, while leaving the vast majority of the site open to the entire world.

You also mention me "attacking you" which, if true, was unintentional. I am simply attempting to attack your idea that my idea is elitist.

My only point would be (again) that obviously a post count isn't required to keep search engine apps out. And if the post count required is that low, anybody who has any vested interest in finding out what's posted inside will take the 10 minutes it'd take to make as many posts as required. And if the threshold is set high enough that it would dissuade a significant portion of "random members of the general public who are not friends of GA out. Reporters, 'Stop the Noise' types, etc." from viewing, then it really does become a rather exclusive thing. I don't know that I'd call it "elitist" necessarily, but...

Anyway, I think the optimum solution is a separate forum that is visible and accessible to all registered, logged-in users with no post count requirement -- other than the standard 5 to include attachments.

In short, trying to keep out the kinds of people you describe is really an exercise in futility and risks really mucking up what's a pretty good formula. All IMO, of course.

 

[ScottM]

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.

See Kent's post above, Grant and Kent's post form when the thread first started. Both of them wanted the google proof forum to have a minimum post count to enter it.

Several had said that was shot down, but Kent has stood by that, this morning he reiterated that he now has lowered his standard to 20 posts. Making a forum that only people who have attained a certain is elitism. I am against that.

 

[ScottM]

Scott,

It's not possible to make a "google proof" area without requiring registration. Is that "elitist?" Gee, I hope not.

I have not once EVER said anything against registration. You are twisting my words to justify you demand for a minimum post count to gain entry to a new forum. That is my objection and has been since the earliest part of this thread.

If all you want is to have a place where search engines cannot get then move some of the existing forums to a place that they cannot be seen. There is no need to create special forum that requires additional posts to gain entry.

 

[ScottM]

Scott,

How can you be visible to the pilot community if you hide all the aviation-related forums?

WtF Over?

The original straw man I proposed had 3 forums visible and after Grant's input there were 5. No one stated that everything would be hidden since we started the strawman idea. Are you just trolling Kent?

 

[gismo]

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.

I see it as the difference between taking a chance of being overheard during a conversation on a bus populated with strangers vs broadcasting it on network TV for the world to see whether or not they were looking to hear what I said. I'm willing to be a lot looser about what I say when I know it isn't likely to be found by someone that's just curious about my name or aircraft registration vs someone that knows me well enough to make an effort to search PoA directly. IOW I recognize that there's no guarantee that anything I post here cannot be uncovered by someone else, but I also realize that by closing some posts to a Google like search changes the odds of that significantly in my favor.

 

[ScottM]

I see it as the difference between taking a chance of being overheard during a conversation on a bus populated with strangers vs broadcasting it on network TV for the world to see whether or not they were looking to hear what I said. I'm willing to be a lot looser about what I say when I know it isn't likely to be found by someone that's just curious about my name or aircraft registration vs someone that knows me well enough to make an effort to search PoA directly. IOW I recognize that there's no guarantee that anything I post here cannot be uncovered by someone else, but I also realize that by closing some posts to a Google like search changes the odds of that significantly in my favor.

Lance that is why I asked the question early on about PoA possibly being responsible if information that does leak out harms someone. Not being a lawyer, but familiar with people, if PoA did create an expectation of protection would there be any grounds for a lawsuit. It was just a question and I had hoped that the MC would consider it as part of the whole discussion.

I think most people realize that anything on Internet would not be secure,. but all it takes is one person being somehow harmed to make an allegation that would have to be defended. An appropriate disclaimer would probably need to be part of the registration process and acknowledged by users.

 

[gismo]

See Kent's post above, Grant and Kent's post form when the thread first started. Both of them wanted the google proof forum to have a minimum post count to enter it.

Several had said that was shot down, but Kent has stood by that, this morning he reiterated that he now has lowered his standard to 20 posts. Making a forum that only people who have attained a certain is elitism. I am against that.

If a min post count is the only practical way to hide from the bots then I could support that. If the reason for implementing that requirement is solely to lock out search engines I wouldn't see it as elitism, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that, in fact I am able to see how this action might appear to be elitist to some. Can you at least agree that Kent's motive for any method of hiding posts including a min post count is not an attempt to form an "elite class" of participants? I'm very certain that's the case.

 

[gismo]

Lance that is why I asked the question early on about PoA possibly being responsible if information that does leak out harms someone. Not being a lawyer, but familiar with people, if PoA did create an expectation of protection would there be any grounds for a lawsuit. It was just a question and I had hoped that the MC would consider it as part of the whole discussion.

I think most people realize that anything on Internet would not be secure,. but all it takes is one person being somehow harmed to make an allegation that would have to be defended. An appropriate disclaimer would probably need to be part of the registration process and acknowledged by users.

That's a valid concern, but I suspect it can be mitigated with a disclaimer or two. I'm certainly willing to let the PoA team draw their own conclusions about that.

 

[ScottM]

If a min post count is the only practical way to hide from the bots then I could support that. If the reason for implementing that requirement is solely to lock out search engines I wouldn't see it as elitism, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that, in fact I am able to see how this action might appear to be elitist to some. Can you at least agree that Kent's motive for any method of hiding posts including a min post count is not an attempt to form an "elite class" of participants? I'm very certain that's the case.

I do not see how minimum post count is able to hide anything from a search engine. Search-bots do not post in order to see this site, nor do they register.

I do understand hiding stuff behind from the search engines will achieve a perceived sense of security for some users.

Put those two things together and I think you arrive back at the strawman I proposed to move SOME of the forums to a non-bot-searchable area. That is accesable only to people that have registered and logged in. That idea does not require any sort of minimum post count nor does it duplicate the charter for an existing forums by creating a new semi-private forum.

My strawman was open for comment, as Grant had shown one or two of the forums needed to be moved out to the area that was for non-registered access. I was ok with that suggestion and was open to more.

 

[ScottM]

That's a valid concern, but I suspect it can be mitigated with a disclaimer or two. I'm certainly willing to let the PoA team draw their own conclusions about that.

I was too and had not raised it again until now albeit with my conclusion, that you share, that a disclaimer would suffice.

 

[TMetzinger]

That's a valid concern, but I suspect it can be mitigated with a disclaimer or two. I'm certainly willing to let the PoA team draw their own conclusions about that.

Real easy - a disclaimer that there is no expectation of privacy is all that's required.

 

[ScottM]

Lance that is why I asked the question early on about PoA possibly being responsible if information that does leak out harms someone. Not being a lawyer, but familiar with people, if PoA did create an expectation of protection would there be any grounds for a lawsuit. It was just a question and I had hoped that the MC would consider it as part of the whole discussion.

I think most people realize that anything on Internet would not be secure,. but all it takes is one person being somehow harmed to make an allegation that would have to be defended. An appropriate disclaimer would probably need to be part of the registration process and acknowledged by users.

That's a valid concern, but I suspect it can be mitigated with a disclaimer or two. I'm certainly willing to let the PoA team draw their own conclusions about that.

Real easy - a disclaimer that there is no expectation of privacy is all that's required.

So three of us agree it is a disclaimer. As soon a lawyer chimes in then it is a closed issue.

I just want to make sure that my bringing it first was documented as there seems to be some people thinking I am trying to be an obstructionist when all I am trying to do is solve the problem looking at all aspects and coming up with a real solution that actually meets the needs of all users.

 

[gismo]

I do not see how minimum post count is able to hide anything from a search engine. Search-bots do not post in order to see this site, nor do they register.

I believe the concept is exactly as you state: Search bots can't meet the min post requirement (on the visible forums) and therefore cannot read a forum that is invisible until the min post count is reached. Personally I don't think this is a particularly efficient way to lock out the bots but I do think it would work. I'd be perfectly happy if some other method that worked as well or better was implemented.

I do understand hiding stuff behind from the search engines will achieve a perceived sense of security for some users.

Put those two things together and I think you arrive back at the strawman I proposed to move SOME of the forums to a non-bot-searchable area. That is accesable only to people that have registered and logged in. That idea does not require any sort of minimum post count nor does it duplicate the charter for an existing forums by creating a new semi-private forum.

I don't see a problem with that either provided it does indeed lock out the search engines (and I don't see why it wouldn't unless the bots get a lot smarter). The registration process would probably need one of those distorted word/number widgets which were created to block bots.

I can see some merit to leaving the existing forums as they are and adding a new one that's protected but that concept has some downsides as well. I'm pretty much neutral on that issue but there is a potential issue with the protection forcing a change in the guidelines for any single forum pushing me a little ways towards a new forum.

My strawman was open for comment, as Grant had shown one or two of the forums needed to be moved out to the area that was for non-registered access. I was ok with that suggestion and was open to more.

Maybe baby steps are called for. Protect one or two forums at first and see how it works. Then let the MC and or members vote on which if any other forums cross the border.

 

[ScottM]

Maybe baby steps are called for. Protect one or two forums at first and see how it works. Then let the MC and or members vote on which if any other forums cross the border.

I could go for just Hangar Talk being moved to being only seen once you register and log in as a starting point.

But I think other people hope that they could talk about things in Lesson's Learned and not have those posts searchable. That is why I had first put in the strawman to have that in the registered area. But as Grant pointed out, rightfully, that would not be possible since anon posting is allowed in that forum by people who had not registered.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Several had said that was shot down, but Kent has stood by that, this morning he reiterated that he now has lowered his standard to 20 posts.

No Scott - *five* posts. Or "maybe as low as two." The 20 I suggested was the first suggestion I threw out early in the thread, and that was after others had suggested "250" and "1000" (even if the second one was a little tongue-in-cheek.) After I saw the amount of objection to high post counts, I quickly decided that 5 would make a good compromise. But no, 5 whole posts is "elitist" and would cause the downfall of PoA.

 

[ScottM]

No Scott - *five* posts. Or "maybe as low as two." The 20 I suggested was the first suggestion I threw out early in the thread,

No sir that is not correct. A gross mischaracterization of what you have posted. While you did indeed bring up the issue of minimum posts early in the thread you have stuck with it.

Indeed,
Post #212 posted by you yesterday, 19 February 2009, at 9:05pm CST

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?

I quickly decided that 5 would make a good compromise. But no, 5 whole posts is "elitist" and would cause the downfall of PoA.

My turn to call BS on you for that revisionist statement. I have never come out against the 5 post minimum which is used for posting links and pictures and is used uniformly across all forums.



That is why I ask, are you being a troll on this one?

I am at least trying to find a solution.

 

[Everskyward]

Au contraire, Mari - I can see a pilot's loved ones trying to find other pilots saying something like "he was a hero for avoiding houses and saving lives on the ground" only to come here and find us all saying "what kind of frickin' idiot was this guy?" Those left behind will try to grasp any straws they can, and may not think much in advance about what they'll find.

Seems like they will find out the truth in the end anyway... maybe.

Frankly, I think most of our discussions about the various accidents are probably harmful to GA and the entire aviation industry when viewed by non-members.

And I think as long as the discussions are based in reality there is nothing to hide. Yes, airplanes crash. We do our best to prevent this but sometimes we are not successful. There's no use kidding ourselves or others.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

WtF Over?

The original straw man I proposed had 3 forums visible and after Grant's input there were 5. No one stated that everything would be hidden since we started the strawman idea. Are you just trolling Kent?

No. This is your exact "straw-man" which HIDES most of the AVIATION forums from Google, thus meaning that new users who are using aviation-related search terms will NO LONGER FIND US:

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?

Your later-modified version STILL leaves the majority of the aviation-related forums hidden to Google:

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

Frankly, I think this would do WAY more damage to PoA in the long run than my proposal of a single forum that is visible only to registered users with at least 5 (or 2!) posts, making it MUCH harder for aviation enthusiasts (ie potential new pilots) to find us! As such, I do not support that idea at all.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And I think as long as the discussions are based in reality there is nothing to hide. Yes, airplanes crash. We do our best to prevent this but sometimes we are not successful. There's no use kidding ourselves or others.

I was envisioning someone using printed-out PoA threads at a city council or county board meeting and saying "SEE? Even *pilots* think there are way too many, and I quote 'idiots flying airplanes'! We HAVE to close down this airport or we're all at risk of getting killed when they fall out of the sky!"

We tend to be very critical of other pilots in most accident scenarios. I think it's a good thing when viewed by other pilots, but potentially a very bad thing when viewed by the general public. Yes, they know planes crash - But they are not nearly as fast to blame the pilots as we are, IMHO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I see it as the difference between taking a chance of being overheard during a conversation on a bus populated with strangers vs broadcasting it on network TV for the world to see whether or not they were looking to hear what I said. I'm willing to be a lot looser about what I say when I know it isn't likely to be found by someone that's just curious about my name or aircraft registration vs someone that knows me well enough to make an effort to search PoA directly. IOW I recognize that there's no guarantee that anything I post here cannot be uncovered by someone else, but I also realize that by closing some posts to a Google like search changes the odds of that significantly in my favor.

If a min post count is the only practical way to hide from the bots then I could support that. If the reason for implementing that requirement is solely to lock out search engines I wouldn't see it as elitism, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that, in fact I am able to see how this action might appear to be elitist to some. Can you at least agree that Kent's motive for any method of hiding posts including a min post count is not an attempt to form an "elite class" of participants? I'm very certain that's the case.

Thank you Lance - You are absolutely correct on all points.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I just want to make sure that my bringing it first was documented as there seems to be some people thinking I am trying to be an obstructionist when all I am trying to do is solve the problem looking at all aspects and coming up with a real solution that actually meets the needs of all users.

Actually Scott, I believe that your "solution" not only does not solve the problem I am trying to solve here, it creates a NEW problem - That it makes PoA MUCH harder for new users to find.

 

[Everskyward]

I was envisioning someone using printed-out PoA threads at a city council or county board meeting and saying "SEE? Even *pilots* think there are way too many, and I quote 'idiots flying airplanes'! We HAVE to close down this airport or we're all at risk of getting killed when they fall out of the sky!"

I guess in my view I would be more concerned about what caused the accident in the first place than what anyone thinks about it.

We tend to be very critical of other pilots in most accident scenarios. I think it's a good thing when viewed by other pilots, but potentially a very bad thing when viewed by the general public. Yes, they know planes crash - But they are not nearly as fast to blame the pilots as we are, IMHO.

I think I tend to be less critical of the pilots in accident scenarios than most people but maybe that's because I've been lucky enough to survive my stupid mistakes. Sometimes I'll read something and think, "wow, that could have been me". Of course there are the potential Darwin award winners...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No sir that is not correct. A gross mischaracterization of what you have posted. While you did indeed bring up the issue of minimum posts early in the thread you have stuck with it.

Okay, so with the emphasis where I should have placed it...

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.

The 20 was actually a fairly random number as I typed that post - I've felt OK about 5 since, oh, about page 4 of the thread. For example:

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).

So, let me state once again that I believe a 5-post minimum would be reasonably effective at solving the problem that I'm attempting to address: That any random person (IE, a reporter looking for an anti-GA story) could register and find Bad Stuff. Could they get 5 posts and find Bad Stuff? Sure, but having to make those 5 posts would be a reasonable deterrent, and would probably show us who they were at least.

My turn to call BS on you for that revisionist statement. I have never come out against the 5 post minimum which is used for posting links and pictures and is used uniformly across all forums.

And how is that not elitist? Really, what's the difference?

That is why I ask, are you being a troll on this one?

I am at least trying to find a solution.

You created a separate problem to solve, which in turn causes other problems. Your "solution" does not completely address the problems I am attempting to solve, and it also creates a new problem, that is, it makes PoA more difficult for the people we WANT to attract to find us.

So no, I am not trolling. I'm attempting to solve the same problem I was on the first post in this thread. Your combative attitude makes me look at YOU as the troll... And I'm beginning to understand how the conservatives in Spin Zone.

 

[ScottM]

No. This is your exact "straw-man" which HIDES most of the AVIATION forums from Google,

No?? What do you mean by that Kent?

You said :

Scott,

How can you be visible to the pilot community if you hide all the aviation-related forums?

I responded that at first I had three forum outside of the protected and then with Grant's suggestion I moved two for a total of five. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU QUOTED FROM ME.

Your later-modified version STILL leaves the majority of the aviation-related forums hidden to Google:

Majority does not equal ALL. Whatever remains outside of the registered area will be seen by the bots. No amount of minimum posts will change that. We already have a minimum of 5 post required and the bots still see everything, change that to 6 or 600 will not change the ability for bots to see the posts. They are not registered and ado not post. Post count has nothing, NOTHING to do with what the bots are doing.

Frankly, I think this would do WAY more damage to PoA in the long run than my proposal of a single forum that is visible only to registered users with at least 5 (or 2!) posts, making it MUCH harder for aviation enthusiasts (ie potential new pilots) to find us! As such, I do not support that idea at all.

Move only Hangar Talk to the registered area then. I said that earlier too. I also said that having posts seen was good for the forum and Chuck agreed too. That is why the strawman has both forum inside and outside of the registered area, what we need to agree upon is which forum should be for registered eyes only, which should be for non-registered eyes to also see.

 

[ScottM]

Okay, so with the emphasis where I should have placed it...



The 20 was actually a fairly random number as I typed that post - I've felt OK about 5 since, oh, about page 4 of the thread. For example:

So, let me state once again that I believe a 5-post minimum would be reasonably effective at solving the problem

we already have a 5 post min and still have the problem. Search-bots do not post, post count has nothing to do with that issue.

You created a separate problem to solve, which in turn causes other problems. Your "solution" does not completely address the problems I am attempting to solve, and it also creates a new problem, that is, it makes PoA more difficult for the people we WANT to attract to find us.

Huih? I solved the problem. Make forum you want hidden from search bots only visible to registered users. Bots do not register, so they will not see the posts.

So no, I am not trolling. I'm attempting to solve the same problem I was on the first post in this thread. Your combative attitude makes me look at YOU as the troll... And I'm beginning to understand how the conservatives in Spin Zone.

It would appear that you do not understand how to solve the problem and do not want to hear how to do it. But you like to spin and write revisionist posts, so yes, I'll bet you feel like the conservatives in the SZ, because you sure sound like them when they make a DA argument.

Have a couple of these for the full effect

 

[gismo]

we already have a 5 post min and still have the problem. Search-bots do not post, post count has nothing to do with that issue.

I'm still confused about your stance on that. The current 5 post minimum only applies to adding attachments to posts. It doesn't in any way prevent a bot from reading a post because there's currently no min post requirement for reading posts in any forum. If the software were configured to require a registered user to make at least 5 posts in one or more of the unprotected forums before being able to view the protected forums, why wouldn't that work (putting aside any elitist concerns)?

 

[gprellwitz]

Okay, this topic certainly engenders a lot of impassioned discussion!

For restricting access, there are two things on the table:
1) requiring a user to be logged in to view a particular forum. This stops web crawlers from indexing that forum.
2) Requiring a minimum number of posts. Depending on who you choose to believe and the number of posts in discussion, this either prevents reporters/looky-loos/eavesdroppers from reading the forum or makes the forum elitist/cliquish.

We're now all in agreement that a forum that allows anonymous posts cannot require a login to view it.

Personally, I don't consider the following forums to be aviation related:News; Sports Section; Technical Corner; Site Feedback and Support; or Registration Problems. None of these forums bring people for the aviation content except perhaps by coincidence.

The discussion now seems to revolve around the following questions:
1) Should any or all of the existing forums require restrictions
2) Should a new forum(s) be created with restrictions

If the answer to either (1) or (2) is YES, then:
3) Should those restrictions be geared at just web-crawlers or should they include those people in (2) at the top.

If the answer to (3) is that it should include those people in (2) at the top,
4) What number is appropriate. Current candidates appear to be 2 and 5.

If we opt to restrict some of the current forums, which ones?

 

[barney]

Dumb question,

How would you get the magic number of posts to read the posts in the post protected threads proposed, that you can't read because you won't be able to get to the post reply button to get your post count up????????

 

[tonycondon]

 

[kevin47881]

Well played, Sir.

 

[KennyFlys]

Well played, Sir.

Ditto!

And, I've beaten a dead horse?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I responded that at first I had three forum outside of the protected and then with Grant's suggestion I moved two for a total of five. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU QUOTED FROM ME.




Majority does not equal ALL.

Your original proposal was ALL. Site Feedback and Support, Classifieds, and News are not really aviation-related except by virtue of being on an aviation web-board. Most of our best content for finding new people is probably in Pilot Training and Flight Following, which are hidden from Google in both your proposals.

Whatever remains outside of the registered area will be seen by the bots. No amount of minimum posts will change that. We already have a minimum of 5 post required and the bots still see everything, change that to 6 or 600 will not change the ability for bots to see the posts.

The minimum we have right now is 5 posts to attach files. ANYBODY can *read* ANYTHING, including a Bot.

Now if you make the forum completely invisible to anyone who doesn't have 5 posts... Well, how the hell is a bot going to be able to register and then post 5 times?

Move only Hangar Talk to the registered area then. I said that earlier too.

I disagree, because there is a lot of good aviation-related content in Hangar Talk and I think it should still be Google-able.

That is why the strawman has both forum inside and outside of the registered area, what we need to agree upon is which forum should be for registered eyes only, which should be for non-registered eyes to also see.

You still seem to advocate having the best aviation forums hidden from Google. If it's half-and-half, that also makes it confusing as to what is Google-able and what isn't. If you make a single, new forum and describe it as "The Google-Free Zone" it's quite clear what's what, and leaves 99% of the aviation-related posts out there for anyone to see so that we can attract as many aviation enthusiasts and future pilots as possible.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

we already have a 5 post min and still have the problem. Search-bots do not post, post count has nothing to do with that issue.

You seem to not understand what the permissions related to 5 posts really are. Anybody with any number of posts can read anything as things are right now - The 5-post number only relates to being able to *post* attachments, and has nothing to do with the ability to read anything.

Huih? I solved the problem.

Huh? No, you didn't.

Here is the problem, at least the one I am talking about in this thread: There are things that we don't necessarily want the entire world to see easily (I really like Lance's "talking about it on a city bus" vs. "broadcast on network television" analogy), be they hapless google-searchers or reporters who want to write a negative story on GA. However, since we want to attract new pilots to the fold, we don't want to hide anything from Google or those reporters that doesn't *need* to be hidden.

It's that last part that causes problems with hiding existing parts of the forum. There's valuable aviation content in all of the forums, even Hangar Talk, that SHOULD be accessible to Google and the world. Heck, we may even get some folks who search for guns or cars or something else that stumble upon us and say "Gee, I've always wanted to start flying, maybe I should ask these guys how to do it?" The reason for having a new forum is to make the *least number of posts possible* hidden from Google, while allowing us to have a city-bus conversation instead of a network-TV conversation.

Make forum you want hidden from search bots only visible to registered users. Bots do not register, so they will not see the posts.

But isn't requiring registration elitist?

That would work on Google but it would not work on the reporters or anti-GA advocates. And since I've talked about that already, I'll quit right there.