"Members Only" forum

[flyingcheesehead]

Dumb question,

Well, at least you can admit it.

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????????

New users would still be able to post (and reply to posts) right away in all of the existing forums, just as they do today.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Post of the day!

 

[SkyHog]

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:



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



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.

He knows it would cause more damage, and that's why he proposed it.

It was disingenuous and I honestly don't believe he ever really wanted that. He wanted us to agree on something that is easy to fight against.

 

[ScottM]

Well, at least you can admit it.



New users would still be able to post (and reply to posts) right away in all of the existing forums, just as they do today.

Except for the forum that they are not good enough, cool enough, or darn it special enough to be in due to their low post count.......and so on and so on and so on.....

BTW that one forum has what charter that is different than any of the existing forum? Will it be a 'closed hangar talk' or will its charter just be 'items that we fear could be read by people new to PoA and bots'?? I ask because the only purpose that this forum would seem to serve is to keep stuff away from bots. Yet, of late, you are adamant that keeping stuff away form bots will harm PoA. When people go to search stuff you want them to find it. I think that is a noble idea. If that is the priority then why hide potentially good stuff behind a some sort of non-searchable area?


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

The way I read the proposal from Kent is that you want a new forum were everything that is already chartered in other forums could be discussed EXCEPT it would be in a non searchable area? Is that right?

If it is, would that not result in a bunch of good information potentially not being searchable? Would it also not duplicate the charter of the other forums and make it harder for people to find stuff when they do search?

Lastly, what does the post count have to do with any of this? We already have a min post count feature and it currently does not stop one bot. Moving a forum(s) to a behind the a 'viewable after registration' curtain would stop the bots.

 

[SkyHog]

Lastly what does the post count have to do with any of this? We already have a min post count feature and it currently does not stop one bot. Moving a forum(s) to a behind the a 'viewable after registration' curtain would stop the bots.

I'd like you to show reference to this 5 post minimum feature. I suspect when you show something from the MC about it, you'll understand why it works that way, since its not a blocker of anything but attachments and images....

 

[ScottM]

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.

Yes, thos are the two things on the table.

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

Yes I see that and thanks for pointing that out.

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.

Agreed

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.

I still want to know what the charter of the proposed new forum would be and other than it will be hidden form bots and/or new people why discussion in it are covering areas not already chartered by other forums? If there is not something being covered in there that is different, duplicating content into a protected and non-protected area does not make sense to me.

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.

Another question is can the software even support a min post count to make a forum visible? Then you also have to ask yourself if your goal was to stop the "either prevents reporters/looky-loos/eavesdroppers" what prevents them from getting those min-posts? A high post count? Won't that turn new people away as it appears cliquish? If it is just to kepp the bots out then the current 5 could be modified to accomplisht that goal. But even then we are back to the what is the new forum containing that is fundemently different than all the other forums?

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

I put up some suggestions and also said that I am willing to think that only one, Hangar Talk, would be adequate.

 

[ScottM]

I'd like you to show reference to this 5 post minimum feature. I suspect when you show something from the MC about it, you'll understand why it works that way, since its not a blocker of anything but attachments and images....

Right it is not a blocker, that is my point. How does changing the min to 6, 7, 8, 9 or whatever suddenly make it a blocker. I asked that question many posts ago and no one has answered it. Can the vBulliten software make post count a blocker of bots? That is my question. My observation is that what we have now for a min post count is not blocking bots.

 

[ScottM]

He knows it would cause more damage, and that's why he proposed it.

It was disingenuous and I honestly don't believe he ever really wanted that. He wanted us to agree on something that is easy to fight against.

No Nick that is not the reason I proposed it.

I proposed it as a starting point to talk. My original postilion is that I think things are just fine and if you do not want something to appear on the search engines then don't post it.

 

[ScottM]

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? .

The key attribute in that sentence is REGISTER. Add ...to view, after that term and you have your solution. That would stop a bot, BUT you then make that information unsearchable by the search engines and as you have said that would cause harm to PoA.

Or you can add the code that Jason mention eons ago. But again, you then make information unsearchable by the search engines and as you have said that would cause harm to PoA.

Again, can vBulliten be configured to allow posts or forums to be hidden until a min post count is achieved?

 

[ScottM]

I went back and looked at the Purple Board from 2007.

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17386

Lots of good posts that discussion a similar theme to what we have been discussing in this thread. The PB is a closed forum, you have to register to see everything. The founders there took the opposite approach to what Chuck and the original PoA MC decided to do. I am NOT passing judgment at all, just noting the difference.

The PBers did create a closed group for privacy as shown by Tom Sisk's post.

We have specific reasons for not opening the whole board up to unregistered viewers - we discussed it, and then discussed it again when it came up a second time. Others can likely explain it better than I, but it's about privacy issues, search engines, robots, etc., as well as other considerations. It wasn't done lightly, but we meant it to be this way.

Look at how that decision by the PB founders was perceived by some people.

You can't view us unless you're an 'elite' member. And why did that board need to be formed, when we have exactly what was wanted, oh, here? Because some people were too good for this place, or just giant crybabies that threw a temper tantrum and had to have their own place.

As I said earlier, I refuse to sign up for anything that I can't preview first, and as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."

An excellent example, and note the word use "ELITE", of how new people can and likely will perceive the change, be it min post count or requiring registration.

In that thread Jesse had this to say about registering

Well. It makes no sense to not let someone view the site without registering. I'm willing to bet that most people lurked on this forum before they ever joined. One day they saw a topic where they thought they had valuable input--so they register.

First thing I do--click on the link and see a login page. That's as far as I'm ever going to get. If I could *SEE* it, I might look at it when I'm bored. Some day I might register and post.

So even the idea of registration may not be a good one. Also Jesse's posts shows that if topics are hidden people will not see the value of registering or getting min post count as they cannot see the value. I liken it to buying something without being able to view the item first. Like Ed says

I don't buy a car w/o test driving it.

Ed then goes on with a long post about how new people feel. That intimidating first step on a board may have been forgotten by the long time users of this board.

You know Doug, I kinda know what you are saying. And it's a good thing you posted what you did, because some of us don't think about where you or other people who feel like "outsiders" are coming from, or that you even feel that way! But there's nothing that makes me, or anyone, part of a higher caste than anyone else here, except we might be above Kent and Mike because of their love of Macs.

Seriously though, when I first joined the AOPA board way back when it was yellow, (2003/2004 maybe) I pretty much just read post and said nothing because I felt kinda the same way. I forget exactly when I first stumbled on the AOPA board, but I was just like you say how you feel - I felt like I wasn't "qualified" to say anything. I even got "yelled at" by Ron Levy for answering someone's question about IR training wrong when I was an instrument student and I thought I knew the answer to the question since I was going through all that at the time. Actually, I never thanked him for it, but that's what really got me to read the FARs over and over and over, and really get to know them, but I digress. The point is, on a message board, you are really going to have to just butt in, and be heard, or else it's really hard to feel part of this community. You don't have to be a professional antagonist like yours truly, or have a condition known as post-itis like Scott Migaldi, or be an authority on anything like, well, me again. (Actually, I'm not, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express - no wait I didn't do that either - maybe I am.)

But really, you just have to be you. But you have to be vocal, or typal, or whatever term it is that makes it so we can get to know you, and anyone else who might feel "lower ranked." Everyone here has something to contribute regardless of experience - aviation or otherwise. The only reason that some of us might appear to be "upper crust" is because really we're just a bunch of blathering idiots with ego complexes that need to see a bunch of words tied to our name, and can't shut up. If you feel left out, butt in!

You are right, there might be a slight stratification, but it's completely unintentional. So, how did I get to be so notorious, other than being one of those blathering idiots who likes to see a bunch of text tied to my name? Blame Adam Zucker for it. Why him? Cause he's a lawyer. No, not really. Blame him for hosting Wings. Even when this board was started when the old AOPA board was taken down, I didn't say a whole heck of a lot on here, and I didn't really feel part of the "in-crowd" until the first Wings Fly B Q. And even when I went to that I was hesitant about going because I was not going to know anyone there! Actually, I was going to know one person there, because I had met Kath in February when she was in the Midwest. But for the most part I was going to be one of the outsiders, and no one but Adam knew I was coming. But as soon as I got there, it was not the case. Ron and Toby were the first to say hello and Ed Guthrie opened up his house for me to stay at, even though I don't think I ever talked directly to him on the board.

After that we all had a slightly closer tie. We had a handshake, or a smile, or a laugh to put with that stranger sitting on the other side of the monitor. And yeah, that can cause a stratification of sorts on the board, but it's certainly not because we feel that you aren't worthy to be here, or that you don't have anything to offer, because everyone here should be here. Hell, there's people that aren't here that should be here. That stratification is only there because a lot of us have a personal connection to others on the board. Me probably moreso than anyone having been to 3 Gaston's, 3 Wings, and 2 of my own hosted fly ins. But whether we've met you in person or not Doug, just jump in. Join the throngs of blathering idiots, we need more of us. And make it to Wings next May, it will change you forever.

Edit: I just saw your sig. I have 0 logged tailwheel or aerobatics time. You are more of an authority on that than I am!

Indeed because we know each other pretty well and socialize outside of the web board this group can be formidable to break into. We need to be careful creating another social strata. We may unintentionally alienate new users.

AdamZ said it best

Ed, John and Gary have said it so very well. Doug I suppose it can seem intimidating as this is really so much more than a web board. We use the term community and front porch a lot here but its true!! I have to tell ya I have a LOT of people I consider friends here, Gary, Ed, Spike, Kent, Grant and on and on and on. We have 3-4 big flyins a year just so we can all get together.

It can be intimidating seening all these folks who know each other jabbering away at one another but this is not like walking into a High School party where everyone knows eachother but you. I can guarantee you if you say Hi I just joined the board you will have a ton of welcome posts. Join us at one of the Fly Ins, The Wings FLYBQ, Gastons, 6Y9er, Glidathon. I guarantee you will be treated as if we knew ya forever.

Please jump in offer opinions tell your stories. you are as much apart of this board as anyone. And By all means come to one or hopefully all of our flyins.

But as I have said before I hope all the boards do well. After all how much fun would flying be if there were only one airport?

So lets tread carefully with what we are trying to do and not rush into something without first discussing all aspects of the problem. Something I have been trying to do since the earliest part of this thread, only to be accused that I want to break PoA. Indeed I don't want a rash decision to break PoA and turn people away.

Because when you do you get this reaction

Tom, that's what I don't get. If there's nothing wrong with this board, why start your own?

A new semi-private forum is like a new board. Or at least it can appear that way to people, especially ones that are new to PoA who do not know us very well.

So I've gotta ask... Why do you need a "purple" board, when we have the blue board??? You can talk about anything you want here, even bikes, as long as you keep it civil. I don't get why you wouldn't just refer people to this board instead of starting a new one.

Because Kent maybe they did not feel very welcomed here.

You know what is funny about the Purple Board? A long time ago when they were first starting up a couple of their founders contacted me inviting me over there. That was way more front porch than what I am seeing here as of late. I'm just sayin'

Maybe the solution is that if you want to say something that is to be kept semi-private you do it on the Purple Board. After all, their whole forum is non-searchable.

We don't want the various search engines (i.e. Google) indexing the contents of our site... which would happen if we allowed unregistered access.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Except for the forum that they are not good enough, cool enough, or darn it special enough to be in due to their low post count.......and so on and so on and so on.....

yadda yadda whatever.

BTW that one forum has what charter that is different than any of the existing forum? Will it be a 'closed hangar talk' or will its charter just be 'items that we fear could be read by people new to PoA and bots'??

Basically, yes. I want anything that's appropriate to be searchable to be searchable.

I ask because the only purpose that this forum would seem to serve is to keep stuff away from bots. Yet, of late, you are adamant that keeping stuff away form bots will harm PoA. When people go to search stuff you want them to find it. I think that is a noble idea. If that is the priority then why hide potentially good stuff behind a some sort of non-searchable area?

Because while it is "potentially good stuff" within the aviation community, it's potentially bad stuff for being viewed outside the community.

The way I read the proposal from Kent is that you want a new forum were everything that is already chartered in other forums could be discussed EXCEPT it would be in a non searchable area? Is that right?

Yep, pretty much.

If it is, would that not result in a bunch of good information potentially not being searchable?

Yes - But the effect here is not that "good stuff isn't searchable." What we have here is that either we have good stuff that isn't searchable, or we have good stuff that never gets posted at all. To the Googlers, there is no difference. To us, there is a big difference.

Would it also not duplicate the charter of the other forums and make it harder for people to find stuff when they do search?

Browse, maybe. Search, I doubt it - Unless they're restricting which forum(s) they're searching, which I never do (I search based on keywords and users, but not forums - We already have so much thread creep that the info you're looking for isn't necessarily in the forum you'd think it would be.)

Lastly, what does the post count have to do with any of this? We already have a min post count feature and it currently does not stop one bot.

Scott, you clearly don't understand the limitations of the current forums based on the 5-post count. You do not need 5 posts to read anything on this board, and that includes the bots. You only need 5 posts to post attachments, and since bots can't make posts at all, there's no difference to them...

 

[ScottM]

Scott, you clearly don't understand the limitations of the current forums based on the 5-post count. You do not need 5 posts to read anything on this board, and that includes the bots. You only need 5 posts to post attachments, and since bots can't make posts at all, there's no difference to them...

Right. The question I keep asking then is how does vBuliten then stop bots based on post count? It appears that is not an available feature.

Why would going to a higher min post count stop bots when obviously 5 is not stopping them?
Is there a feature in vBulliten that allows for forum to not be seen unless a certain post count is achieved?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I still want to know what the charter of the proposed new forum would be and other than it will be hidden form bots and/or new people why discussion in it are covering areas not already chartered by other forums? If there is not something being covered in there that is different, duplicating content into a protected and non-protected area does not make sense to me.

It wouldn't be duplicating content - A thread would either be in the "hidden" forum, or in the appropriate non-hidden forum.

What would be "different" is that maybe some people would post things there, that they wouldn't post at all otherwise.

Then you also have to ask yourself if your goal was to stop the "either prevents reporters/looky-loos/eavesdroppers" what prevents them from getting those min-posts? A high post count? Won't that turn new people away as it appears cliquish?

I think even 5 posts is enough of a deterrent, especially for a reporter who has a deadline coming up in an hour or two, that they'll just move along to another board. After all, it's not like this will be advertised. "Hey! If you want to see the good stuff, you've gotta make five posts!" I'm envisioning it as just being invisible until they have 5 posts. So no, it won't appear cliquish because it just simply won't appear.

But even then we are back to the what is the new forum containing that is fundemently different than all the other forums?

Content that would not otherwise be posted.

 

[ScottM]

Content that would not otherwise be posted.

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


Also lets say there is a way to have min post count give you access to a protected forum (I am still waiting for a confirmation of that). Neglecting duplication of forum charter and content.. Why would not just making that forum available only to registered users not accomplish the same goal? Do you honestly think that if a reporter is too busy to make 5 BS posts that he would then also be too busy to register?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Right. The question I keep asking then is how does vBuliten then stop bots based on post count? It appears that is not an available feature.

Why would going to a higher min post count stop bots when obviously 5 is not stopping them?

Because the 5 *is not supposed to stop them*. The 5 *only* applies to posting attachments right now. Period.

vBulletin clearly has the ability to make different forums available to different groups of users. Go look in your User CP, under "edit group memberships" and you'll see that you are a Validated User, which makes the Registration Problems forum invisible. You're also in the Spin Zone group, that you added yourself to. An MC member would be a member of the MC group that allows them to see their own private forum.

vBulletin also clearly has the ability to do things based on post count, because that's exactly what happens for the attachments.

 

[ScottM]

Because the 5 *is not supposed to stop them*. The 5 *only* applies to posting attachments right now. Period.

YEs I KNOW THAT. You still are avoiding the question. Can post count STOP anybody from seeing a forum?? Is Vbulliten capable of that? Currently the way it is configured it so not stopping anything but spam, I get that and have since the earliest part of this thread. But NO ONE is willing or capabale of answering the most basic qustion, can post post be used to prevent search-bots in vBuilliten?

I know you think it can do it, but does someone who at least knows the difference between Java and Javascript and is familiar with vBulliten confirm that feature?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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

This is not somewhere that I'd post things like "My employer sucks balls and here's their client list" by any means. I would still post in here the story that got me in trouble a while back, because it wouldn't have been found without Google.

Also lets say there is a way to have min post count give you access to a protected forum (I am still waiting for a confirmation of that).

I'm sure that if it wasn't possible, Jesse would have let us know about 11 pages ago.

Neglecting duplication of forum charter and content.. Why would not just making that forum available only to registered users not accomplish the same goal? Do you honestly think that if a reporter is too busy to make 5 BS posts that he would then also be too busy to register?

No. Registration is easy and effectively anonymous. You can register and get your dirt and be gone before anyone knows what happened. If you have to register and then stand up and wave your arms and say "Hello world, I'm here!" then it'll be fairly obvious - They can ask how to learn to fly on the first post, but they'll have to BS up a few more posts and I think it'll be fairly obvious in many cases. Also, since they won't even know of the existence of the hidden forum, they won't know that they have to make 5 posts to get into it.

Alternatively, there could be a required time period, say a week, between the initial registration and the ability to view the hidden forum. I'd be OK with that either in addition to, or even instead of, a minimum post count. Well, at least I'm OK with it so far, I just came up with the idea while writing the previous paragraph and haven't had time to think it through yet.

 

[ScottM]

I'm sure that if it wasn't possible, Jesse would have let us know about 11 pages ago.

That logic can work the other way too.

It could just be that Jesse's perverse sense of humor is stopping him from responding so that he watch this whole thing keep going on.

If it is possible then we could tie the current 5 post requirement to being able to see the protected forums, but as I said before and showed in detail in post 290, http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=414593&postcount=290, it will perceived as elitist.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

An excellent example, and note the word use "ELITE", of how new people can and likely will perceive the change, be it min post count or requiring registration.

The difference is, the Purple Board is completely, entirely closed. You can't get to know anyone before deciding to sign up, you can't see what they talk about, you can't get any idea of what kind of community it really is. That's why this proposal is not analogous to the Purple Board's policy.

So lets tread carefully with what we are trying to do and not rush into something without first discussing all aspects of the problem.

I don't want a perception of elitism any more than you do. I don't think this is elitist at all, unless someone goes running around posting "Ha ha newbies, we have a private room that you can't get in, blah blah". It's more like being allowed into the club, and then after you've been there a few minutes and your eyes adjust to the darkness, you see another door that you didn't see when you first walked in. That's all.

Something I have been trying to do since the earliest part of this thread, only to be accused that I want to break PoA. Indeed I don't want a rash decision to break PoA and turn people away.

I think that perception may be from your recent actions in other threads - You don't seem like yourself lately, at least to me. There have been several instances in the last couple of weeks where you take something very seriously (and reply in a very heated manner) that looks to me like an obvious joke, something I've never seen from you in the past. Everything going all right with you?

A new semi-private forum is like a new board. Or at least it can appear that way to people, especially ones that are new to PoA who do not know us very well.

Well, at the time, I didn't think there was anything wrong with this board, as I said. Now, I think that I might have been wrong about that, which is why I'm trying to do something about it.

Maybe the solution is that if you want to say something that is to be kept semi-private you do it on the Purple Board. After all, their whole forum is non-searchable.

And unfortunately, that may be what I have to do. But this is my home, my comfort zone, and where I want to post neat stories. If we stick with the status quo, I guess I'll be forced to post the good stuff on the Purple Board instead.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That logic can work the other way too.

It could just be that Jesse's perverse sense of humor is stopping him from responding so that he watch this whole thing keep going on.

True dat!

 

[ScottM]

And unfortunately, that may be what I have to do. But this is my home, my comfort zone, and where I want to post neat stories. If we stick with the status quo, I guess I'll be forced to post the good stuff on the Purple Board instead.

You know, I feel the same way about this place. It is the openness that makes me feel that way. I perceive the closing of parts of this board to be taking that aspect of this community away.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You know, I feel the same way about this place. It is the openness that makes me feel that way. I perceive the closing of parts of this board to be taking that aspect of this community away.

See, I don't look at this as closing parts of this board at all - I look at it as opening new parts up.

Nothing that is currently being posted should be hidden, and things that people wouldn't post otherwise will be accessible to most board members, instead of nobody.

 

[ScottM]

See, I don't look at this as closing parts of this board at all - I look at it as opening new parts up.

Nothing that is currently being posted should be hidden, and things that people wouldn't post otherwise will be accessible to most board members, instead of nobody.

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

 

[flyingcheesehead]

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

Is there an echo in here???

Like Lance said - This is stuff I'd talk about on a city bus, but wouldn't necessarily want on network TV. It's no big secret, just want to make it a bit harder to find.

 

[Lawreston]

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).

. . . . and my handshakes have only been with Dr. Bruce, Andrew Stanley, Ed Frederick, CarolT, SuperCub185(Phil?),and Dr. Barb(Shortwings?). But I respect most of what all others have contributed. And my guest room remains open for whomever comes to Maine.

HR(not the one in Vancouver, BC, who's had 561,000 hits on Google)

 

[Everskyward]

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

Is there an echo in here???

Yes, because I believe that too. How do know that there are not reporters and the members of the dreaded public already on here registered and reading this discussion? Oh wait. It's probably much too boring for them.

 

[Teller1900]

. . . . and my handshakes have only been with Dr. Bruce, Andrew Stanley, Ed Frederick, CarolT, SuperCub185(Phil?),and Dr. Barb(Shortwings?). But I respect most of what all others have contributed. And my guest room remains open for whomever comes to Maine.

HR(not the one in Vancouver, BC, who's had 561,000 hits on Google)

And me!!

 

[skyflyer8]

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.

Could we pose that question to the POA membership in the form of a poll?

Does this issue matter to more people than just the few debating it on this thread? Obviously a few care a lot about it -- look at the times on some of the posts. (Or maybe that's normal)

I'd like to see some sort of decision here, one way or another. A poll, a trial run of something new, or even just saying "We're going to keep everything the way it is." Someone, please do something, even if it's to say you'll do nothing. Progress, please!

Edit: Jeepers, I'm blind. And thankfully I wasn't the only person with this idea.

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

 

[TMetzinger]

That poll is interesting but doesn't really address the question.. So, I'm going to start another one. http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27524

 

[gprellwitz]

Scott and Kent, we're BEYOND the point where I would insist that we get together in person, or at the very least do a conference call if we were at work. Scott's got a SCUBA class this weekend, but let's talk soon, huh?

 

[skyflyer8]

Scott and Kent, we're BEYOND the point where I would insist that we get together in person, or at the very least do a conference call if we were at work. Scott's got a SCUBA class this weekend, but let's talk soon, huh?

I still have that Chicago trip coming up, hopefully, one of these days... I volunteer to be the moderator

 

[gismo]

It could just be that Jesse's perverse sense of humor is stopping him from responding so that he watch this whole thing keep going on.

I think I may have mentioned something like this already but IMO the best thing we could do here is to identify what capabilities we would like to be added to the webboard and try to avoid specifying how those capabilities would be implemented other than as examples that help explain the capability.

IOW we should provide something like "We want to shield some but not all forums from google like search engines" and "I'd like to be able to post in at least one forum on the board without worrying about lurkers, particularly reporters or folks with an anti-aviation axe to grind, seeing those posts". I think it's also constructive to indicate concerns like "I wouldn't want this to be implemented in a way that other members would consider elitist" or "We would want to make sure that such a change didn't prevent potential new members from being able to get a taste for the flavor of this board without registering or worse yet, making a minimum number of posts.

Then leave it up to the MC and our VBulletin experts to come up with one or more ways to accomplish the desired goals and present that back to the membership if they aren't sure what methods would be most acceptable.

 

[jesse]

I think I may have mentioned something like this already but IMO the best thing we could do here is to identify what capabilities we would like to be added to the webboard and try to avoid specifying how those capabilities would be implemented other than as examples that help explain the capability.

IOW we should provide something like "We want to shield some but not all forums from google like search engines" and "I'd like to be able to post in at least one forum on the board without worrying about lurkers, particularly reporters or folks with an anti-aviation axe to grind, seeing those posts". I think it's also constructive to indicate concerns like "I wouldn't want this to be implemented in a way that other members would consider elitist" or "We would want to make sure that such a change didn't prevent potential new members from being able to get a taste for the flavor of this board without registering or worse yet, making a minimum number of posts.

Then leave it up to the MC and our VBulletin experts to come up with one or more ways to accomplish the desired goals and present that back to the membership if they aren't sure what methods would be most acceptable.

Ding..ding..ding

As to the question of me not saying anything--it is mostly--because this thread has *way* too many long posts and I simply don't have the time or patience to read the bickering back and forth that has been occurring. Say something once, keep it sweet. No reason to say it 47 times with twelve thousand words.

 

[flyersfan31]

Just wondering...

What would people who google this site think about this thread????

 

[gismo]

Just wondering...

What would people who google this site think about this thread????

Yeah, if only we had a hidden forum to post it in.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I reiterate. If you want a private place to say things that won't get on a search engine, use the Purple Board. They are there. That is what they do.

 

[TMetzinger]

I reiterate. If you want a private place to say things that won't get on a search engine, use the Purple Board. They are there. That is what they do.

BS - why can't we have one purplish subforum on THIS board?

 

[gismo]

BS - why can't we have one purplish subforum on THIS board?

Maybe we could all that forum the Purple Zone.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I reiterate. If you want a private place to say things that won't get on a search engine, use the Purple Board. They are there. That is what they do.

My friends are here. These are the people I want to talk to. No offense to the purple boarders, I'm sure there's a lot of "us" there too... But I'd rather do it here. If this doesn't go through, then maybe I'll head over there, but I'd rather just keep the good stuff here.

 

[Greebo]

Scott,

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

Yeah, actually, it is.

Password protect the forum but allow anyone to see and key in the password. Put the password in the description of the forum.

The search bots won't be able to. Any human with an IQ > 70 will.

Of course, that IQ assumption is elitist.