Members' only threads?

[CWS4322]

In light of the recent page-jacking incident, is there a way to that threads can be set to be members only / public? If so, then would it be possible for the OP to request / select "Members Only" when starting a new thread? (So the entire thread would be either Public or Members Only).

 

[Cerise]

In light of the recent page-jacking incident, is there a way to that threads can be set to be members only / public? If so, then would it be possible for the OP to request / select "Members Only" when starting a new thread? (So the entire thread would be either Public or Members Only).

What is page jacking? Only members can reply to posts. Sorry, CWS. Not following your request.

 

[jabbur]

What is page jacking? Only members can reply to posts. Sorry, CWS. Not following your request.

What CWS is talking about is that recently posts from here at DC have been showing up on another page called cookingmoz.com. It will be word for word posts but the other site randomly changes the poster's name. The entire thread is there just like here.

 

[taxlady]

What CWS is talking about is that recently posts from here at DC have been showing up on another page called cookingmoz.com. It will be word for word posts but the other site randomly changes the poster's name. The entire thread is there just like here.

Actually, only page one of the thread is there.

I would love to have some pages that were private to us members.

 

[CWS4322]

LinkedIn Groups have "members only" (locked groups)/public. I lurk on the public only, reply privately.

 

[Cerise]

Thanks, Jabbur. I briefly read the two threads here & glanced over there.

I wouldn't worry about it. Andy R. is aware, I think. It does not appear to be a real cooking site with real members. It's silly (odd) to see welcome to DC to new members.

Personally, I'm not big on private groups. Was on a site that had same, & when I saw the badmouthing & gossiping, I walked away.

 

[CWS4322]

Thanks, Jabbur. I briefly read the two threads here & glanced over there.

I wouldn't worry about it. Andy R. is aware, I think. It does not appear to be a real cooking site with real members. It's silly (odd) to see welcome to DC to new members.

Personally, I'm not big on private groups. Was on a site that had same, & when I saw the badmouthing & gossiping, I walked away.

I disagree. I'm on a lot of forums/groups that are locked. I find that the people are very candid and professional. I don't like the idea of s/one hijacking threads, changing identities. I'm old school. The only people who used to be able to call me on the phone were ones that had my #. Now I get telemarketing/blind calls. Let's take back our privacy.

 

[Steve Kroll]

I think what CWS is suggesting is that, going forward, you would have to be a member and logged in, in order to view content on DC. Currently all content is open to the public and anyone is able to see it, and that's how the hijacking takes place.

Most of the forums I belong to require you to be logged in to view content, so it wouldn't be much different for me.

 

[Hoot]

It would however, cut off literally thousands of folks who read here. On the other hand, maybe those would sign up.
Take right now for instance....at 3:34 pm
21 members and 1,255 guests
I realize some of those ain't real people....bots, web crawlers and such are included in that.
Is there a way to determine which is which?

 

[taxlady]

I think what CWS is suggesting is that, going forward, you would have to be a member and logged in, in order to view content on DC. Currently all content is open to the public and anyone is able to see it, and that's how the hijacking takes place.

Most of the forums I belong to require you to be logged in to view content, so it wouldn't be much different for me.

I think she means that when someone starts a thread they would have the option to make that particular thread private, not necessarily all new threads.

 

[Andy M.]

In light of the recent page-jacking incident, is there a way to that threads can be set to be members only / public? If so, then would it be possible for the OP to request / select "Members Only" when starting a new thread? (So the entire thread would be either Public or Members Only).

Internet forums are great and allow you to interact with a varied group of people. They're not a place for private conversations. If I want to be devious and nasty, all I have to do is sign up. Then all your 'private' conversations are available to me.

 

[Steve Kroll]

I think she means that when someone starts a thread they would have the option to make that particular thread private, not necessarily all new threads.

Ah yes, I went back and read the original post and I think you are correct.

Some forums have a few "teaser" areas that are left open to the public, but all the good stuff (in our case, recipes, photos, etc.) is restricted to registered members. The teasers are there to entice new members.

In any case, I suppose it's someone else's decision.

 

[FrankZ]

I am not sure that marking a thread as private would be conducive to the sharing we all try to do here. And it would not stop someone who would steal from creating an account then doing the theft anyway.

I am also not sure this is a native function or if we would have to engage developer time.

Thank you for the suggestion and trying to think outside the box on helping us avoid issues like this in the future.

 

[taxlady]

I don't want to post pix of myself and family where they can be seen by everyone. Okay, someone can sign up and see them, but they wouldn't get indexed by search engines in a members only topic.

 

[CWS4322]

I think she means that when someone starts a thread they would have the option to make that particular thread private, not necessarily all new threads.

"She' means that to view certain threads, one would have to be a member. One currently can view all threads, but can't post a response unless one is a member. And, evidently, one can page-jack threads without being a member. Why can people view posts without being a member but can't post a response unless a member?

"She" is very protective of her privacy--has an unlisted, unpublished phone #, checks regularly to make sure her info doesn't appear on the web, etc.

 

[Somebunny]

I wonder how restricting the sight to members only would affect new folks coming in......I only found our great site by googling for a recipe, if recipes were not public then interested people might not find us at all.

 

[taxlady]

I wonder how restricting the sight to members only would affect new folks coming in......I only found our great site by googling for a recipe, if recipes were not public then interested people might not find us at all.

It wouldn't be all posts.

We had a post where we were asked to post pix of ourselves. I don't like to do that in a post that is accessible to search engines.

How about when we say we will be going on vacation, away from our homes. That doesn't need to be accessible to search engines. I think it should be mostly for off topic threads.

 

[Somebunny]

I agree about pictures and info regarding being away from our homes. We don't need everyone having that info.

 

[TATTRAT]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, Isn't is ultimately up to the user what they decide to share/not share?

If you don't want something shared: don't post it. Pretty simple.

If you have something to say, and are looking for a "specific crowd", that is what the PM's are for. . .if there is not a forum specific sub forum/usergroup that needs to be approved to join.

When you participate in a public forum, you have to remember, it's public. If there are paid sections/clubhouses/member only areas, that STILL doesn't ensure your online anonymity.

 

[Kylie1969]

Well said Tatt