What do you want to do regarding admin logins?

[Debra]

Would you like there to be a centralized admin username/login that the admins share?

Would you like each admin to have their own admin login that they only use when working on the forums (and post with their regular usernames)?

Or do you want the admins to have admin rights attached to their regular usernames?

Per YAAPS policy this poll will close in 7 days, which is 2/19/08.

[mirage1]

I'd like it to be whatever's easiest...I chose other.

[Debra]

I will be abstaining from voting on this poll. ;)

[~PQ]

This is the one issue I feel passionatly about.

For those that may not know this, DCF and VB allow similar admin abilities, but they display differently, this is an inherently more powerful board from an administration standpoint. I do not think it's an issue of anyone ever intending to abuse privelages- but administrators can't help what they see when logged in.

Perfect case in point is the who is online feature at the bottom of the main forum page. Most of us see the names of folks who have not chosen to be "invisible", (ahem, I am invisible...lol!), in fact- you can click down there and even see exactly what thread people are currently viewing. Administrators on the other hand, see EVERYONE who is logged in, even those who are "invisible". They're not being sneaky about it, it's just a default thing.

I am particularly concerned about the IPs being visible for sensitive topic purposes.

I really would be uncomfortable knowing some of you "see" much more than the rest of us on any given day. I know sometimes it may be necesary to log in as admin to tweak or prune something, or perhaps even the dreaded ST abuse scenario- but really, that's not such a frequent thing, I doubt an admin log in would be used all that often. So I admit I am really arguing here in favor of a seperate administrative log in for those people who have been designated to administer things.

[Debra]

Perfect case in point is the who is online feature at the bottom of the main forum page. Most of us see the names of folks who have not chosen to be "invisible", (ahem, I am invisible...lol!), in fact- you can click down there and even see exactly what thread people are currently viewing. Administrators on the other hand, see EVERYONE who is logged in, even those who are "invisible". They're not being sneaky about it, it's just a default thing.

FWIW, when that was brought up (and it hadn't occurred to me) I went to the bottom of the page and collapsed my view on that so that I can't see any of the names at all. However, DH just showed me where that setting is and I have turned this option to no: Can 'See' Users Who Have Chosen to be Invisible While Online is now set to no. We can't see you if you are invisible.

I am particularly concerned about the IPs being visible for sensitive topic purposes.

I didn't even know they were visible until you said something. LOL I had to look for what you were talking about! I'm going through the admin panel now trying to see if that can be hidden while we wait for the poll results. Ok, we turned that off in one place, DH says there is one more place to turn it off and we are looking for it. (DH has a poker tournament in 15 minutes so I'll be offline for the night.)

[Kerry]

I am particularly concerned about the IPs being visible for sensitive topic purposes.

At DCF, the IP was visible with just a click of a button on the ST post. Is that significantly different for you?

[indigo]

This is the one issue I feel passionatly about.


Perfect case in point is the who is online feature at the bottom of the main forum page. Most of us see the names of folks who have not chosen to be "invisible", (ahem, I am invisible...lol!), in fact- you can click down there and even see exactly what thread people are currently viewing. Administrators on the other hand, see EVERYONE who is logged in, even those who are "invisible". They're not being sneaky about it, it's just a default thing.

.

If you make yourself invisible, when you look at "who's online" can you see yourself anyway? (Even if nobody else can?)

[~PQ]

J, not only can we all see you are online reading this thread right now... we can also all see your pajamas- they have little sheep and clouds on them, right??? ;)

Yes, you can see yourself, but no one else other than admin can see you- you should see a little asterict next to your name, that indicates you are indeed on invisible.

[~PQ]

Interesting! Its been about 8 yrs since I've seen an admin control panel at DCF and my memory must be faulty, I stand corrected- I was under the impression at DCF the IPs were not readily visible in the immediate thread. It doesn't really change my feelings about this, it just makes me wish we'd kept the admin log in at yaaps a long time ago...lol!!

[~PQ]

Wow Debra, that was above and beyond but I really appreciate you and DH taking the time and effort to go to those legnths!

[indigo]

J, not only can we all see you are online reading this thread right now... we can also all see your pajamas- they have little sheep and clouds on them, right??? ;)

Yes, you can see yourself, but no one else other than admin can see you- you should see a little asterict next to your name, that indicates you are indeed on invisible.

haha. shows what you know. the pajamas have fire engines on them.

[Gargoyle]

I'd like it to be whatever's easiest...I chose other.

I'm with you. I think what ever makes things the easiest for the admin people, would be just fine with me.

[Mary]

I don't see why regular usernames wouldn't work. nt

[Cat]

no text

[Hawthorne]

Other: Either of the top two options is fine with me.

[Ali]

Throw me in with the "whatever is easiest for admins" group. :)

[niteowll]

if there is an issue. Also, I would like either the yahoo or gmail group have their emails listed and also changed if/when someone changes their involvement. I think that would help. Although I do suppose that they have the yaaps.admin thing now too, but I'd still like to know who the admins are. Their regular log in names I mean, if we go that way.

[candeo]

I voted for 2, but 1 and 2 are equally fine with me, depending on what is logistically easier for the admins. I guessed that 2 wold be easier, but it was just a guess.

3, having admin rights attached to their regular usernames, is the option that is completely not fine with me. If I could, I would just vote "no" to that option, and let the admins sort out the particulars of how they manage from there. I just feel it would be cleaner to have separate admin names for the admin work, and have them be regular users like the rest of us the rest of the time.

[Vicky]

lalala

[kathy caribe]

After being an admin at MS (and at MS each and every member has admin rights) I've come to realize that it is much easier to perform admin duties from my own userid. However, it seems to me that the admins themselves should be the ones to decide what is easiest for them. Since I'm not alone in this sentiment, and since not everyone might read that "other" has become "let the admins decide" can we close this poll and make that a poll answer? Is it possible to modify the poll and let everyone re-vote if they want to?

[serialmom]

To me, what this means is that we know who the admins are by user name, we know they have admin rights. It's all transparent. When admins take time off or a new member takes on admin duties, the change is announced and everyone knows who to go to with a question or concern.

Now, if the admins feel another option is easier, I'm for that as well. Easy button, baby.

[Rosemary]

I'm not comfortable with admin being able to see certain things. I mean I rarely used ST, but I won't use it for sure now. It's not that I distrust anyone, but say a year from now, someone else is heading things up, or whatever, I think it can get too hairy and I can see it eventually being a problem and people being unjustly accused of something.

[aleutsi]

And if there is just ONE central admin username, can more than one admin at a time log in to use it?

[Debra]

Interesting! Its been about 8 yrs since I've seen an admin control panel at DCF and my memory must be faulty, I stand corrected- I was under the impression at DCF the IPs were not readily visible in the immediate thread. It doesn't really change my feelings about this, it just makes me wish we'd kept the admin log in at yaaps a long time ago...lol!!

I believe that was in the upgrade to DCF+ which was, I believe, 5 years ago.

[Debra]

Wow Debra, that was above and beyond but I really appreciate you and DH taking the time and effort to go to those legnths!

I don't mind in the slightest, PQ. ;) I would never wish to make anyone uncomfortable. I will say now that I do not care about IPs and visibility at all and do not look at those. But I understand the option being there makes some people uncomfortable (says Option Girl ;-).

DH said he'll help me look for that last setting tonight.

[Debra]

And if there is just ONE central admin username, can more than one admin at a time log in to use it?

I don't think so. This is why we changed when we were setting up DCF+ 5 years ago. We kept logging each other out and itwas really frustrating. I will post over at the vB support forums and ask if two admins can be logged in at the same time with the same username. Security-wise I doubt it will let you.

[Debra]

After being an admin at MS (and at MS each and every member has admin rights) I've come to realize that it is much easier to perform admin duties from my own userid. However, it seems to me that the admins themselves should be the ones to decide what is easiest for them. Since I'm not alone in this sentiment, and since not everyone might read that "other" has become "let the admins decide" can we close this poll and make that a poll answer? Is it possible to modify the poll and let everyone re-vote if they want to?

I'd rather not if we can help it. Other does not mean "let admins decide". We aren't deciding, you guys have to do this one. I'm not even voting in this poll, I think it's a conflict of interest.

Uh oh. Option Girl just took away an option from herself! :eek:

[Bonny]

I'd like to add my "whatever is easiest for the admins" vote, but I'm not exactly sure what IS the easiest for the admins, and I can understand their reluctance to make such a decision themselves.

[kathy caribe]

I'd rather not if we can help it. Other does not mean "let admins decide". We aren't deciding, you guys have to do this one. I'm not even voting in this poll, I think it's a conflict of interest.

Uh oh. Option Girl just took away an option from herself! :eek:

I'm not saying that other means admins decide but reading the thread, many people voting other are indicating that they want the admins to decide.

As a non-admin, it would be difficult for me to know what is easiest for the admins. As such, since I have no issues with privacy, etc., I would prefer that the admins decide how they want to structure their logins. If the community decides that the admins are best qualified to make this decision, are you saying that you will refuse to make that decision?

[retro]

But look at all the other pretty options you have!!!!

[Debra]

If the community decides that the admins are best qualified to make this decision, are you saying that you will refuse to make that decision?

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I will do whatever the community decides, period.

[Anne]

I don't think so. This is why we changed when we were setting up DCF+ 5 years ago. We kept logging each other out and itwas really frustrating. I will post over at the vB support forums and ask if two admins can be logged in at the same time with the same username. Security-wise I doubt it will let you.

If it's a problem using the same account we could perhaps opt for more than one account (i.e., admin1, admin2, etc.) or something like that. I've seen that at another site.

[retro]

If it's a problem using the same account we could perhaps opt for more than one account (i.e., admin1, admin2, etc.) or something like that. I've seen that at another site.

That is what we did for another site as well. It worked out really well and it was easy for all the admins to move in and out of.

[kathy caribe]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you. I will do whatever the community decides, period.

i think i came across more harshly than i intended (though i'm not sure how i came across). it sounded like you were saying that the admins would NOT make this decision and I couldn't figure out your hard stance on that.

i probably could have worded my response better.

i've been sick all day, i'm using jamie's mac (and I HATE that to page down i need to use TWO keys! How back assward is that?) and I'm worried about my papa. So, excuses galore but no excuses.

[Debra]

i think i came across more harshly than i intended (though i'm not sure how i came across). it sounded like you were saying that the admins would NOT make this decision and I couldn't figure out your hard stance on that.

i probably could have worded my response better.

i've been sick all day, i'm using jamie's mac (and I HATE that to page down i need to use TWO keys! How back assward is that?) and I'm worried about my papa. So, excuses galore but no excuses.

You didn't come across harsh at all, I just realized I had read your post too quickly and had misunderstood you. ;)

[Debra]

61 people voted.

36.07% of people would like the admins to have one centralized admin login. (This was a majority vote.)

This will be taken care of in the next few days while we coordinate the username and password.

Thanks to everyone that voted!

[kathy caribe]

61 people voted.

36.07% of people would like the admins to have one centralized admin login. (This was a majority vote.)

This will be taken care of in the next few days while we coordinate the username and password.

Thanks to everyone that voted!

First, I'd like to make it VERY clear that I really don't care how this vote turned out, so what I'm about to say has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

I really don't see how anyone can consider a vote which won by 3 votes and 36% of the vote a majority win. I would be very unhappy about the conculsion that was reached (the majority of the community wants this option to pass) if I were passionate about this issue. Again, I'm NOT suggesting that this result be nullified. I am just wondering how 3 votes and 36% constitutes a majority?

[mirage1]

First, I'd like to make it VERY clear that I really don't care how this vote turned out, so what I'm about to say has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

I really don't see how anyone can consider a vote which won by 3 votes and 36% of the vote a majority win. I would be very unhappy about the conculsion that was reached (the majority of the community wants this option to pass) if I were passionate about this issue. Again, I'm NOT suggesting that this result be nullified. I am just wondering how 3 votes and 36% constitutes a majority?MK, what do you hope to achieve by posting this here? I don't think this is an issue worth even discussing in THIS thread, you know? :dunno:

Plus, there were at least 6 people who said that "whatever's easiest" was fine. Debra could have even used those votes to bolster the second choice if she'd wanted, and if that would have been easier for the admins.

If you want to discuss how YAAPS makes decisions, I'd start a new thread, instead of starting something that all disclaimers to the contrary, makes it seem like you do have an issue with how this one turned out. This follows the previously agreed-upon rules, as far as I remember--it's a simple majority.

[Debra]

First, I'd like to make it VERY clear that I really don't care how this vote turned out, so what I'm about to say has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

I really don't see how anyone can consider a vote which won by 3 votes and 36% of the vote a majority win. I would be very unhappy about the conculsion that was reached (the majority of the community wants this option to pass) if I were passionate about this issue. Again, I'm NOT suggesting that this result be nullified. I am just wondering how 3 votes and 36% constitutes a majority?


It constitutes majority simply because more people voted for that option than any other option. This is how it has always been.

But we often revisit YAAPS policies from time to time, so please feel free to start a new thread to revisit how poll results are determined if that is something you are interested in discussing.

[kathy caribe]

MK, what do you hope to achieve by posting this here? I don't think this is an issue worth even discussing in THIS thread, you know? :dunno:

Plus, there were at least 6 people who said that "whatever's easiest" was fine. Debra could have even used those votes to bolster the second choice if she'd wanted, and if that would have been easier for the admins.

If you want to discuss how YAAPS makes decisions, I'd start a new thread, instead of starting something that all disclaimers to the contrary, makes it seem like you do have an issue with how this one turned out. This follows the previously agreed-upon rules, as far as I remember--it's a simple majority.

The reason I posted this here is because I thought (and still do - I haven't checked all the previous posts) that this is where Kari and Debra and myself (maybe more) were discussing what majority was. I am absolutely CERTAIN it was in reference to this vote, so color me crazy, but I remembered it here in the thread.

And I can't tell you how incredibly difficult it is to post when people completely ignore what you've posted ("I don't have a problem with the outcome of this vote") and decide that they know what your real motivations are in posting. SHEESH!

For what it is worth (and apparently that is NOTHING), I thought I remembered Debra posting something to the effect that the when votes showed no clear winner that the vote would be scrapped or up for discussion or something. And I remembered that conversation in this thread. Apparently I have my threads mixed up but I'm still not sure since I haven't re-read each and every post in this thread recently.

So THAT is why I posted these questions in this thread.

I'll admit that this is a bit of a hot-button for me, after posting in the "institution" thread and having people tell me that irregardless of what I'd posted, they knew better and what I really meant was something different.

[aleutsi]

The reason I posted this here is because I thought (and still do - I haven't checked all the previous posts) that this is where Kari and Debra and myself (maybe more) were discussing what majority was. I am absolutely CERTAIN it was in reference to this vote, so color me crazy, but I remembered it here in the thread.

And I can't tell you how incredibly difficult it is to post when people completely ignore what you've posted ("I don't have a problem with the outcome of this vote") and decide that they know what your real motivations are in posting. SHEESH!

For what it is worth (and apparently that is NOTHING), I thought I remembered Debra posting something to the effect that the when votes showed no clear winner that the vote would be scrapped or up for discussion or something. And I remembered that conversation in this thread. Apparently I have my threads mixed up but I'm still not sure since I haven't re-read each and every post in this thread recently.

So THAT is why I posted these questions in this thread.

I'll admit that this is a bit of a hot-button for me, after posting in the "institution" thread and having people tell me that irregardless of what I'd posted, they knew better and what I really meant was something different.

I don't think it was this thread, Kathy - at least I couldn't find it just now when I scanned the thread - I do remember that conversation, though.

I too was curious and wondered the same question you asked here - but in my own head. I was glad to see it asked because I was curious. Like you, I'm not passionate about the result either way.

I also don't see a problem with asking the question in this thread because this is an illustration of such a circumstance where a majority vote might not actually be a majority. I almost posted the same question, but having a busy day, I decided to just skip it.

I also appreciate the answer of "simple" majority and how that was defined in answer to your question - and it actually rang bells of familiarity for me.

[mirage1]

The reason I posted this here is because I thought (and still do - I haven't checked all the previous posts) that this is where Kari and Debra and myself (maybe more) were discussing what majority was. I am absolutely CERTAIN it was in reference to this vote, so color me crazy, but I remembered it here in the thread.

And I can't tell you how incredibly difficult it is to post when people completely ignore what you've posted ("I don't have a problem with the outcome of this vote") and decide that they know what your real motivations are in posting. SHEESH!

For what it is worth (and apparently that is NOTHING), I thought I remembered Debra posting something to the effect that the when votes showed no clear winner that the vote would be scrapped or up for discussion or something. And I remembered that conversation in this thread. Apparently I have my threads mixed up but I'm still not sure since I haven't re-read each and every post in this thread recently.

So THAT is why I posted these questions in this thread.

I'll admit that this is a bit of a hot-button for me, after posting in the "institution" thread and having people tell me that irregardless of what I'd posted, they knew better and what I really meant was something different.I'm sorry--I actually just started a sort of similar thread in this same forum. :embarass: