Roger. I'm puzzled. Why is your suggestion regarding guest sign-ins any different than what we now have? As far as I know (please correct me if I'm wrong), guests can read the Forums, but not post, and only members can post.
We have to have some mechanism for allowing non-members to see what's happening - or we'd never get new members - so they can look, but they can't touch. And if you want to post - you have to join.
What am I missing here? It's true, your approach asks the casual browser to sign in as a guest - so I agree it's somewhat more exclusionary - but there's no screening process, anybody can be a guest - and anybody can see what we're posting.
Regarding protecting the Forums (and the site) from googling - I'm in complete agreement. If I was still working, I would be very uncomfortable knowing that any business associate who googled my name would be able to read every thread, and poem, and political pronouncement I made. I'd be posting under a different name (which is a bummer if you start publishing, because it would be nice to publish under your own name.) I know you've been through that. But I regard google-proofing the site as a different element than members-only access. And I also feel that - even with google-proofing - stuff leaks. (There are periodic complaints on the Gaz, even though whatever they do seems to work fell, brom the most Google-averse.) So I think that, if you post on the internet, you have to accept the fact that whatever you put up may be seen, but proceed on the premise that you will try to encourage whatever steps are possible to limit the chances of this happening.
|