Your Comments Please

ben_brown · Post by **ben_brown** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:14 pm

Maybe if real names could only be viewed by logged in members. I know most people here by their real names...not their nicknames. If you hid everyone's real names and only showed nicknames I would be a lost soul here...that's for sure.

jps · Post by **jps** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:16 pm

Right, Steve!

elysrand · Post by **elysrand** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:19 pm

I too like the idea of going private, Peter. Most BBS-heritage fora allow only limited access to a select number of "public" areas, and require login as a member to see the rest. Many also have grades of access, where the new member is granted increasing areas of access to content until they have belonged for a certain threshold period of posting activity to "see it all".

Such added features are being contemplated by Discusware for Discus Pro 5.0 I understand.

That would also dissuade non-participants from leeching information off the Forum threads for monetary gain, without contributing anything in return, like VG/SG and others.

Adding or editing further a robots.txt profile of allowed and disallowed areas for spidering by legitimate engines such as Google, will only dissuade the legit crawlers. It will of course not stop the determined spam miners

I have already been victimized by spammers as a result of belonging to this Forum, since my server software tracks each single-purpose role account separately. Hiding certain easily-spidered personal data on the Forum, using built-in Discus Pro features, would be highly desirable

Another feature request many have is increased image file size. This can easily be accomplished by taking up that loud-mouthed know-it-all guy with the funny name on his offer to provided free hosting with vastly-increased bandwidth and execution speed for Discus Pro 4.1 in a dedicated environment.

Hmm, now what was that wacko character's name that keeps offering that boost to the board? Dunno, he is pretty forgettable at that.

Guess I better go spider the wide-open RRF site to find out.....

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:49 pm

I don't mind the postings and even my name being public. It would be nice if viewing our profiles required logging in.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:58 pm

I'm responsible for some of the burden placed upon Peter's site operation. Specifically, we authorized it only if true names were visible along with e-mail and IP addresses. (The e-mail requirement compliance has been a bit spotty unfortunately.) However, I see no reason why a hybrid approach, as proposed above- full profile viewable only to members- would not meet those requirements.

Some other sites, including our own, have met this requirement by giving us access to that information separately, either with a special log or administrator's account. That's also an acceptable alternative.

Finally, Peter could simply choose to not be an authorized site and not be bound by any restrictions from us- except there would be no use of the logo and no members of the company would participate.

Many decisions . . . and I'm sure there's plenty more acceptable possibilities as well.

ajish4 · Post by **ajish4** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:27 pm

I'm for private or semi-private as JH suggested Peter. You know my main reason for concern.

I've had strangers contact me about some of the guitars I had listed in forum posts with "can I please buy that bass from you" from NON-FORUM MEMBERS. Not a big deal, but I wasn't too comfortable with that.

As the value of these instruments we love is starting to push the envelope of 5-10-15K and possibly even higher, I feel like we are advertising our cherished RIC's to unscrouplous eyes.

PARANOID, yes, but I'd feel better safe than sorry. I took my name out of the white pages due to the fact I received a few calls about my postings on this forum.

I discovered your site by tripping across the registration page. I ALMOST didn't join when you requested full disclosure for all to see. I wonder just how many OTHERS didn't join for that very reason.

Also, now with some FAMOUS members joining, I feel it is our obligation to protect them from any outside pot shots and give them a SAFE & COMFORTABLE place to come and read and post. All you need is one bad experience to chase them away. I'd HATE to lose ANY one of them!

I don't have a problem with you and any site administrators having my personal information. It is the lurkers that worry me.

This place is a little sanctuary for me, I'd enjoy it all the more not worrying about who just may be reading some personal information I post that isn't part of our little family.

alanz · Post by **alanz** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:30 pm

As I have said here several times, exposing real names and IP addresses is unique to this site in my experience and is not a desirable feature.

It might have been OK years ago when it was a tight group of insiders but things haven't been that way for a long time now.

alan · Post by **alan** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:02 pm

I'm fairly new to the whole concept of web forums, and hadn't considered the "evil-doers" until just recently. And I've chosen to use my actual name on here, rather than the silly 2tens I use on the Ric site. I'm sure you guys will do what's best for us all, and I appreciate the very fact I'm able to participate in these discussions. I love this site.

Lost Coyotes · Post by **Lost Coyotes** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:14 pm

Peter, You do a fantastic service for us all here, and thank you very much!

I agree with many who think that readily visible email addresses and "real" names should be visible only to you and your staff, registered members, and the folks at Rickenbacker. Nobody else needs that information, as far as I can see.

lyle_from_minneapolis · Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:28 pm

I now have a better understanding of everyone's privacy concerns. Sounds like there are many ways to hide names, addresses and profiles. But I would still ask that non-members are able to read the posts before they join---otherwise, how would you know what you're joining?

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:23 pm

While it's a good idea to have email addresses and real names visible only to registered members, what's to stop a person who's only intent is to be a spammer or pain in the rear, from becoming a registered member?

Lost Coyotes · Post by **Lost Coyotes** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:26 pm

Nothing will stop the truly determined, but it'll slow them down, I suppose.
I don't know, it was just a thought.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:38 pm

It's a goods idea, Mike, but I know there are plenty of people who just lurk here, whether they are registered members or not. It might not be Rickenbacker instruments that a lurker or two would be interested in.

Lost Coyotes · Post by **Lost Coyotes** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:44 pm

That's true, Joey.
It may not even be feasible to do that, but the web-experts like Peter should know.

I'm not too concerned about it. Nothing bad has happened to me with things as they are. I think it's cool that Peter is concerned enough to ask.

relayer4u · Post by **relayer4u** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:45 pm

I would like to suggest that we add a "computer support" type of forum where we can share what works for us, as individuals, in minimising the risks and spam here on the web. With a few freeware programs and a spam filter, I am able to enjoy the web pretty well these days, with a minimum of intrusions.