Are we really going to have a private forum here?

[retro]

private meaning you can only see it logged in. I really hoped there would be a vote before something was put up. That seems backwards from what used to happen.

Just wondering.

[Kari]

I am personally not a fan of forums which can only be viewed by those who are logged in. I honestly don't think it adds any extra privacy or security, and it's a PITA for those of us who only have time to do a quick scan of the forums.

[~PQ]

The way I understand it from the email from Mandi on the list is we're not really using it now, it's just up to show as a sample so people understand what they're voting on.

[retro]

gotcha...

just weird because things before were never just done and then voted on. There was always a vote first. I just found it odd that it was sitting here waiting for everyone when registration began. Especially since there were some very strong opinions against the idea.

Since it is sitting there I would like this to be a priority..you know...once the feelings are smoothed out...

[Loopy]

The way I understand it from the email from Mandi on the list is we're not really using it now, it's just up to show as a sample so people understand what they're voting on.

LMAO I'm sorry Kristy but this just cracked me up, literally. I think we all understand what "you can't see the forum unless your logged in" means. I'm surprised, like her, that it's up there until the community has voted.

And seriously, NO SNARK INTENDED!!!! I swear, really. I just LOL when I read that. :)

[Storymama]

I felt a live demo would be helpful, because many people wouldn't quite understand what we were describing. Some people are visual, and some are not. I thought it was probably likely that some people had never even seen an actual private forum, as many of us were never invited into the Inner Sanctum back at AMU.

As I hope you've seen, it's a dummy demo - just my one dummy post in there, with posting disabled after that. Some people need to see how it works to Get It, and some of us don't. It's there for those that do.

We've asked that we could have a bit of time for things to settle out before we proceed with more changes, including whether to keep it (and obviously, make it functional) or ditch it. I respect that it's a particularly huge change, but I think our volunteer team deserves a bit of a work break and then we'll get back to it. I think at that point, it'll be the same priority as the rest of the items being brought up that need addressing, which is to say - important.

[retro]

My main concern was, again, that it was put up without even a vote to consider it from the community. Deciding to have it in the first place is a far cry from "keeping it or ditching it". Especially with the sentiments that were expressed on the google group.

This I think is a HUGE priority since it is something that was completely opposite from what this community boasted of in the first place. To be prided on being a completely open community to "here is what a private forum looks like" is a real switch for me at least. I am sure there was no force intended. I certainly don't imply that there was. Just that, like I have stated before, this kind of thing would never have even been put up for trial without consent from a majority vote from the community. Especially, with the consideration that there are a good number of members who are completely opposed to such a thing.

[Storymama]

It must seem that way to everyone who declined to participate in the discussions in the Backend secondary google group, and I sympathize. I don't know what else to tell you other than we are just peeking under the hood of all the possibilities that vB offers us, and I hope that the community will be patient.

I hope the expectation is not that we never misstep, because . . . I can guarantee disappointment. I am not here to Never Disappoint, or Never Misstep.

I am here as a community volunteer, serving YAAPS at large, because I hope it does a little good. I can understand that our efforts seem disappointing to some, so I can only ask that you be patient while we both get a break, and see what everyone wants.

[Sue]

YOu probably could have described it in 10 threads, and I would not get what you were talking about.

As is, in one second after being logged on I thought "Oh cool, I guess we will be votinging on a feature.

I have to say it again. But you know how much I volunteer, so yo u*know* I *know* were you are coming from. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

As the head of a volunteer organization people know they will feel the "Wrath of Sue" if they start complaining about all the hardwork one of my volunteers are doing. I am not saying that is or isnt' happening (freakin' internet) but I hope you or any other wonderful VOLUNTEER do(es)n't feel like it is!!

Even if I didn't think you were doing a wonderful job (and I do) I would stil say THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!

[aleutsi]

private meaning you can only see it logged in. I really hoped there would be a vote before something was put up. That seems backwards from what used to happen.

Just wondering.

Hmm.. Wasn't Yowls hidden? I thought this was the same thing. It's not private, just hidden. Anyone can have access. To me that's not private.

[Kerry]

Hmm.. Wasn't Yowls hidden? I thought this was the same thing. It's not private, just hidden. Anyone can have access. To me that's not private.

No, it wasn't hidden. It was just a "child" forum inside the Health one. You had to go into the health forum before you could see it. But anyone could still see it, even if they weren't logged in.

The issue with "hidden" forums is that sometimes members browse/read without logging in. There are times when I CAN'T log in (such as on certain computers at work) and it would be very frustrating to me to not be able to read all the forums all the time.

[MorgnsGrl]

But I want to say my biggest concern re: private forums (and maybe this was already discussed to death on the google group thing, which I never saw) is that people might make the mistake of thinking that the forums ARE private, and that their private, personal "stuff" is somehow safe there, when in reality it is not.

[aleutsi]

No, it wasn't hidden. It was just a "child" forum inside the Health one. You had to go into the health forum before you could see it. But anyone could still see it, even if they weren't logged in.

The issue with "hidden" forums is that sometimes members browse/read without logging in. There are times when I CAN'T log in (such as on certain computers at work) and it would be very frustrating to me to not be able to read all the forums all the time.

Yowls was out of sight by design, so others wouldn't see it all the time. (and, btw, it was very frustrating to me to have it set up that way, I kept missing it and marking it by accident - more than half the time I forgot it was even there). This to me would be in the spirit of that Yowls forum, maybe different technically.. .but there are a LOT of technical differences with the change of software. It's a far cry from a true private forum, IMO.

And as far as it being there now - I think it was put up when the techies were playing with new features - they opened the doors clearly stating that things are not finished because we still have a lot of voting to do.

All that said, I'll be one to vote against it because it's a hassle that I don't want to hassle with.

[MorgnsGrl]

no text

[Debra]

Since it is sitting there I would like this to be a priority

I agree, and I am sure this will be one of the first things put up to vote when we are at that point.

Thanks for your patience.

[Jill]

I mean, the personal stuff has always been right out there anyway. So other than the "trigger" aspect that was considered when making YOWLS an embedded forum, what would the benefit be? It's NOT more private, so why imply that it is? It's only *slighty* inconvenient - but I don't see any benefit and yet I see the potential for a lot of speculation even if not warranted.

Just musing though, not in any rush to figure this out...

[~PQ]

See, I understand the feature totally because I belong to other websites that use the feature, but I suspect there must be some at YAAPS who have not ever seen that feature and who might appreciate the example.

I don't have a dog in this fight or anything, lol, I seriously don't care one way or the other over this specific issue and defer to all of you who DO care one way or the other. I was just repeating what had been stated on the email list though in case some missed it (that an example would be up so people would see what they were voting for/against) and thought the forum was a done deal.

[retro]

well, you can get more private by using the sensitivetopic login but I guess this is something MORE?

*shrug*

[retro]

Amy...you are cracking me up. In a cute way....

I think that is a valid concern.

[riversprite]

Yowls was out of sight by design, so others wouldn't see it all the time.

This wasn't my impression of how it happened.
All of the "weight loss etc" posts used to just be made in Health and Relationships. Some members expressed their issues with having to see weightloss and body image threads ALL THE TIME.
So, we created a separate forum that had to be clicked on in order to read those types of threads.
The actual forum was a sub-forum of H&R but not meant to not be seen, if that makes sense.
The threads with those topics were meant to not be seen in H&R aymore, but teh forum itself was not intended to be "hidden" in any way.

[aleutsi]

This wasn't my impression of how it happened.
All of the "weight loss etc" posts used to just be made in Health and Relationships. Some members expressed their issues with having to see weightloss and body image threads ALL THE TIME.
So, we created a separate forum that had to be clicked on in order to read those types of threads.
The actual forum was a sub-forum of H&R but not meant to not be seen, if that makes sense.
The threads with those topics were meant to not be seen in H&R aymore, but teh forum itself was not intended to be "hidden" in any way.

I guess "not to be seen" to me is equal to "hidden". A forum that can't be seen unless you are logged in, to me, is the same as a forum that can't be seen unless you are in another forum.

Now the necessity of it, I can see the necessity of Yowls being hidden in that manner, but I can't see the necessity of whatever that dummy forum might be. :spinning:

[riversprite]

Ah, see the difference from what I remember is that you DIDN'T have to be logged in to see YOWLS. It was always at the top of the H&R forum.

[Kerry]

I guess "not to be seen" to me is equal to "hidden". A forum that can't be seen unless you are logged in, to me, is the same as a forum that can't be seen unless you are in another forum.

But it's not equal because one could still lurk at YOWLS without logging in. You're aware of its existence even if you're not a registered member. With a hidden forum, you cannot. It's like the forum doesn't exist until you're registered AND logged in. That's the difference.

[mowse]

This is just an idea...

But what if we did have one private forum that you had to be logged on to view...and make it the illegal forum. I know many threads in the illegal forum before were not work/kids in the room friendly.

With the new setup when you hit "read new" everything comes up in newest thread first order and not separated out by forums. I can see some use for not having posts like the ones in illegal coming up if you were to read new while not logged in.

[Kerry]

This is just an idea...

But what if we did have one private forum that you had to be logged on to view...and make it the illegal forum. I know many threads in the illegal forum before were not work/kids in the room friendly.

Because many people are opposed to having a forum that's only visible to members who are logged in. It doesn't matter WHAT the forum is. It's the principle of the matter.

[mowse]

Because many people are opposed to having a forum that's only visible to members who are logged in. It doesn't matter WHAT the forum is. It's the principle of the matter.

it was just a suggestion. This was the only situation in which *I* would be comfortable with a private board.

[aleutsi]

Ah, see the difference from what I remember is that you DIDN'T have to be logged in to see YOWLS. It was always at the top of the H&R forum.

You remember right, but to me logging in and having to go into a certain forum requires about the same effort - actually, since I keep my settings as "always logged in" it actually requires more effort to go into a certain forum, than it does to log in.

[aleutsi]

But it's not equal because one could still lurk at YOWLS without logging in. You're aware of its existence even if you're not a registered member. With a hidden forum, you cannot. It's like the forum doesn't exist until you're registered AND logged in. That's the difference.

I guess I don't understand the significance of that difference? But then I also don't understand the necessity of it, it doesn't offer any security or privacy.

[Kerry]

I guess I don't understand the significance of that difference? But then I also don't understand the necessity of it, it doesn't offer any security or privacy.

The significance is twofold, in my opinion.

A) Having forums that are private except to registered members gives the impression that we're exclusive. There are MANY people who lurk here, but for whatever reason, aren't comfortable registering a username. Or they CAN'T register a username. I still want the site to be open for everyone to read/lurk. I know there are certain people who have a need or preference for a secure place where they can talk about issues they don't want the world to see. YAAPS has NEVER presented itself as being that place, and the compromise we came up with is the ST username.

B) When I'm at work, there are certain computers at which I cannot log in. That means that if we have a private forum that's visible to registered members only, I won't be able to read those forums at work.

[aleutsi]

The significance is twofold, in my opinion.

A) Having forums that are private except to registered members gives the impression that we're exclusive. There are MANY people who lurk here, but for whatever reason, aren't comfortable registering a username. Or they CAN'T register a username. I still want the site to be open for everyone to read/lurk. I know there are certain people who have a need or preference for a secure place where they can talk about issues they don't want the world to see. YAAPS has NEVER presented itself as being that place, and the compromise we came up with is the ST username.

B) When I'm at work, there are certain computers at which I cannot log in. That means that if we have a private forum that's visible to registered members only, I won't be able to read those forums at work.

Ah! That makes sense. Thanks for spelling it out for me.

[serialmom]

Honestly, did Mandi ever say "Let's have a private forum?" I don't think she ever did. My best recollection is that she and Debra were clear in describing the ongoing test of features, please be patient, make lists of concerns, they'll be addressed. I didn't sign in to the backend discussions so I have no idea what was discussed before our new site went live. But at no time do I recall anyone saying that every feature will be used, no votes, etc.

Your question strikes me as inflammatory, given that we don't have a fire going on.

[Kerry]

Honestly, did Mandi ever say "Let's have a private forum?" I don't think she ever did.

Actually, she did. It was on the "backend" list.

[serialmom]

Ah, ok. That group is closed now?

[Kerry]

Ah, ok. That group is closed now?

No, it's still there for anyone who asked for access to it.

I can C&P the discussion about private forums here for anyone who doesn't currently have access, if they wish. Just so they have a bit of context.

[Debra]

Honestly, did Mandi ever say "Let's have a private forum?" I don't think she ever did. My best recollection is that she and Debra were clear in describing the ongoing test of features, please be patient, make lists of concerns, they'll be addressed. I didn't sign in to the backend discussions so I have no idea what was discussed before our new site went live. But at no time do I recall anyone saying that every feature will be used, no votes, etc.

I personally felt she was very clear that is was a suggestion. Actually, I thought the title of the forum made it clear that is was a test only.

Proposed Personal Forum (http://www.yaaps.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
Demo Forum Only - Read Only. Logged in members can view forum. Logged out visitors cannot.

http://groups.google.com/group/yaaps-backend/browse_thread/thread/e0c9b8d29e902dc2/69d0246786b1b9fb?lnk=gst&q=forum#69d0246786b1b9fb

More options Feb 9, 5:13 am
From: Storymama
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 05:13:31 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Feb 9 2008 5:13 am
Subject: Further Security Discussions


Janet's post about searchability further reminded me that I've been
wanting to propose a semi private forum at the new vB, something
visible to every active, logged in member.

The visibility of vB forums is very flexible. You can make a forum
completely visible to anyone, logged in or not. You can require they
be logged in to view it. You can create a group of "allowed" visitors
and make the forum only visible to them, or you can make a forum
visible to everyone but only available to members of a group.

I think for the most part, we should make the forums wide open, as
they have been - viewable whether you are logged in or not.

But I'd like to propose, as a service to those who would find it
comforting, that we consider also have a semi private forum for active
members, only visible and accessible if you are logged in. We could
(I believe, gotta look under the hood again) create a group that one
is automatically a member of after x number (something low, just to
sort out pure lurkers) of posts, and make the forum only visible to
those members . . . or whatever way the community thinks is a fair way
to run that. I see the usage for this form being things like veiling
personal things from employers (or *ahem* federal spouse employers
LOL) and the like. I think we will still get use out of an ST type
user account too, though.
No rules about not making reference to its existence on the main
forums, except to remind people not to overestimate their privacy
ever, anywhere online. I am unsure what sort of community custom we
should encourage (or will organically spring up) surrounding
accidentally making reference to subject matter brought up in such a
forum, in the regular pubic forums. We have a standing tradition of
asking people, no harm no foul, to edit out things that we don't want
online when they accidentally include it . . . so maybe that will
suffice. It's worked well in the past.



Sorry for the bold text. I was searching for the it. :)

[Kerry]

"Let's have a private forum". Kerry, can you reference where Mandi said that? I don't remember that AT ALL.

Debra quoted the post in which Mandi proposed the idea of a "private" forum (in the context of this discussion, I'm using the definition of "private" the same way everyone else is in this thread - a forum that's only visible to logged in members).

Janet's post about searchability further reminded me that I've been
wanting to propose a semi private forum at the new vB, something
visible to every active, logged in member.


But I'd like to propose, as a service to those who would find it
comforting, that we consider also have a semi private forum for active
members, only visible and accessible if you are logged in.

The entire thread, including everyone else's comments, is available if you click on the second link Debra provided. It really doesn't matter to me WHO first proposed the idea. I was just responding to SerialMom's post.

[KMP]

Also it was posted on the main google board, that a "sample" would be set up on the new boards and THEN it could be voted on. So to me that read, do first then ask questions.

[Kerry]

than saying "Let's have a private forum".

Seriously? You're going to argue that there is a significant difference between "I propose we have a private forum" and "let's have a private forum"?

Okay, I'm done because this is just devolving into ridiculousness.

I think the spirit of SerialMom's post was that Mandi was not the one to first suggest the idea of a private forum, and my point in response to her was simply that yes, she was. Again, I don't really care WHO first suggested/proposed/whatever verb you choose to use. It's not important to me. I was simply addressing SerialMom's statement.

[KMP]

How on earth would I be able to make an informed decision, if I wasn't "allowed" to see what the possibility was?

But whatever happened to the "we don't want private forums" majority in the first place? I guess I don't agree with the "try it you might like it" approach.

[Vicky]

I guess it all has to do with your learning style. A couple of people have said that it was very helpful having it there to see so they can understand exactly what they would be voting for or against. I guess I just don't see why it is so wrong to have a visual aid.

[Kerry]

I guess it all has to do with your learning style. A couple of people have said that it was very helpful having it there to see so they can understand exactly what they would be voting for or against. I guess I just don't see why it is so wrong to have a visual aid.

I think for many people (myself included) it makes it seem like the idea of the private forum is being thrust upon us. The admins have kept stressing that they let us all in here when the site itself was just a skeleton (I think the analogy given was that the sheetrock wasn't even up yet). The site is just a bare skeleton, yet the time was found to put up a sample of a private forum that the majority of people have already said they are opposed to. It kind of DOES feel like it's being pushed on us. I'm going to say something that I know will probably offend some, and I don't know how else to say it without risking that offense, so I'll just come out and say it - it feels like some decisions are being made out of personal preference and self-interest, rather than the good of the community.

[KMP]

And I can understand your line of thinking as well. However to use your illusion, if I said to an architect, I don't want a 2 story building, and he said I hear you but just look at it anyway, I'd be upset with him too. There was an overwhelming majority vote at YAAPS to never have our forums be private (and yes I believe having to register to see everything is private and especially with the caveat of having the correct numbers of posts). New software or not, the ability to do it does not change the fact that it was decided upon already. I read it as "I know you don't want it, but here let's just check it out anyway."

There are many of us vehemently opposed to private forums due to previous experience at AMU, and let's not forget Mamanirvana. And feel like even a "proposal" is against the community's wishes.

That's my opinion.

[Debra]

it feels like some decisions are being made out of personal preference and self-interest, rather than the good of the community.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will simply reiterate that nothing is done, nothing is decided upon. Hence, no decisions are being made out of personal preference and self-interest because...no decisions are being made.

I am trying to get moving with the polls, etc. The other ladies that help me out are not really available right now, and I am trying to get myself organized before I start throwing polls up. Since I now deeply regret opening the forums when we did, I am trying to not make the same mistakes and am trying to think things through very carefully.

[KMP]

You know what Trish, you aren't even attempting to possibly see another side of this. Everything I've said has been met rebuffs and, dare I say it, sarcasm.

I said my piece I'm done.

[KMP]

Guess I'm not done. Why does any disagreement always have to come down to a "are you going to volunteer to do it"?

The decision to move to VB was PUT TO A VOTE and the majority ruled. My personal vote and Debra can attest to it was "I don't care. Switch, don't switch, whatever." I voted that way because I don't care format is used, plain and simple. And no, I don't want to run anything. But private forums I care about, and I have voted NO. Why do I have to re-examine my thoughts on the matter? I'm not assuming negative intent, because I do believe that majority will rule again, but I'm just stating that I (and maybe others) am upset that this vote doesn't count anymore and we'll have to vote again.

Oh and like always tone is hard to read, but the "You, obviously, not so much!" and "I'm a big girl" lines weren't sarcastic? Just saying.

[Debra]

I (and maybe others) am upset that this vote doesn't count anymore and we'll have to vote again.

I apologize if that is the way it has come across, I can assure you it certainly was not intended that way. There have been occasions when we have revisited policies (like banning ST abusers, for one) and this was simply how it was intended. Not that anything didn't count, simply a revisit.

I will be putting up that poll tonight so we can this one done and over with. :)

[KMP]

I will be putting up that poll tonight so we can this one done and over with. :)
Thank you, that's all I ever wanted.

[KMP]

I like spinach....my youngest, not so much! This isn't any different. It's not sarcastic. And...I *AM* a big girl. So are you. We all are. It's a statement of fact. Not sarcasm. I'm sorry you're choosing to read it that way.

Okay, and I'm sorry I assumed otherwise. (The sarcasm part, not the big girl part.)

[jerzymama]

But I like to assume positive intent...

Here's where I'm completely stumped. And Trish I'm responding to your post but it's because that phrase "assume positive intent" has been mentioned a few times today in defense of administrative actions and/or decisions, however, temporary and fluid they may be.

I just don't get and it really saddens me that for the first time ever there's a sense that to QUESTION a choice by the YAAPS admin is in ANY WAY accusatory. I don't think ANYONE feels that there IS negative intent - ever - I mean that just so goes against the YAAPS community - does negativity rear it's head, YES OF COURSE, we're a community of humans - without censorship...

What the *naysayers* are merely trying to say is - THIS IS HOW IT FEELS WHEN.... And, its reasonable, as the builders of this community for those concerns to be taken seriously and validated. And I'm also offended by sentiment that to question something infers ingratitude..like a CHILD complaining about his birthday present. We are ALL here voluntarily and we are ALL volunterring to create and maintain this community.

I disagree a bit with Kerry that things are being proposed in the interest of personal preference - what I think might've happened is that decisions were made to be EXPEDIENT - I daresay that as parents we have ALL made EXPEDIENT decisions regarding our families, we understand that sometimes in DIRE circumstances those kinds of decisions MUST be made. But it's my opinion that we're past the crisis phase. Personally, once I made contact at the google site - it felt *past* the crisis phase FOR ME, and while I'm so very very GRATEFUL that we have *here* - I'm OK with slowing down the process - if that is feasible. Of course, we can't expect anyone to just be universally available to administer the site and make adjustments at whim...but if a framework or a timeline *could* be provided that would be good as well.

As for the question at hand regarding the private forum.. I'm an admin myself on another vbulletin DB and I'm so very very against a private forum here that just the suggestion really upset me. At it's worst, and I don't know how it worked in DC - but for vbulletin, it allows admins to pick and chose who can be allowed in a forum and like the death penality, even if we never avail ourselves to it, it still sucks that it's an option, yk?