# Members' only threads?



## CWS4322 (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 15, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

Cerise said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

jabbur said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

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


----------



## Cerise (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 15, 2012)

Cerise said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 15, 2012)

Steve Kroll said:


> 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. (Aug 15, 2012)

CWS4322 said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

taxlady said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 15, 2012)

taxlady said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2012)

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 (Aug 16, 2012)

Somebunny said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2012)

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


----------



## TATTRAT (Aug 16, 2012)

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 (Aug 16, 2012)

Well said Tatt


----------



## Alix (Aug 16, 2012)

Might I suggest folks check the Community tab on the blue bar? Click social groups and create a dedicated group where you can post to your heart's content. Those are a bit more private.


----------



## taxlady (Aug 16, 2012)

Alix said:


> Might I suggest folks check the Community tab on the blue bar? Click social groups and create a dedicated group where you can post to your heart's content. Those are a bit more private.


That's a good idea Alix, but it's not something that is easy to notice. I joined the green one and there is hardly any conversation there. Well, I assume so, I haven't looked in a while. I _think_ I get email notifications of new posts there.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 16, 2012)

I was looking for that link...couldn't find it.
Then it dawned on me ...
I prefer the v1 format.  The Community link isn't there. At least I can't find it.
I switched to v3 format and there it is!


----------



## FrankZ (Aug 16, 2012)

Hoot said:


> I was looking for that link...couldn't find it.
> Then it dawned on me ...
> I prefer the v1 format.  The Community link isn't there. At least I can't find it.
> I switched to v3 format and there it is!



The older skins are not supported officially anymore and are not updated.  New features with the forum may not make the cut.  

Social groups can help but, again, if scummy people want it they will just create an account and get it.  

Security through obscurity is no security at all.

One more caution is never, ever, expect anything on the Internet to be truly private.  We here at DC do our best to maintain your privacy on site, but we can not control the packets in route.  We can not control any software on your system, including anything that could monitor your doings and send them off elsewhere.  

The best advice I can give anyone is something Kathleen's young cousin said once:

Never put anything in your diary you don't want to see in court.
​If you don't want everyone on the Internet to see something don't put it anywhere on the Internet.


----------



## Andy M. (Aug 16, 2012)

Hoot said:


> I was looking for that link...couldn't find it.
> Then it dawned on me ...
> I prefer the v1 format.  The Community link isn't there. At least I can't find it.
> I switched to v3 format and there it is!



There is no Community tab in v. 1.0 but the Social Groups menu item is under the Quick Links drop down menu.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 16, 2012)

FrankZ said:


> The older skins are not supported officially anymore and are not updated.  New features with the forum may not make the cut.


  I know....I reckon I am just slow to change some things....The older format is easier on my old eyes too.


----------



## Hoot (Aug 16, 2012)

Andy M. said:


> There is no Community tab in v. 1.0 but the Social Groups menu item is under the Quick Links drop down menu.


  Thanks Andy!


----------



## Andy M. (Aug 16, 2012)

You're welcome.  I prefer v. 1.0 as well.


----------



## Margi Cintrano (Aug 16, 2012)

We have an old adage or saying: Never put anything in writing that can be brought to court ... Same as F.Z. mentioned a few posts above. 

Good advice and thanks for posting it. 

Like Steve, I am a member of a Professional Interntl. Wine Forum via membership also ... There are subtle differences between professional forums and those with a good group of serious minded people with a specific interest and much lesser in numbers, than the thousands of browsers in same "space" ...  

Have lovely August.

M.C.


----------



## Bolas De Fraile (Aug 16, 2012)

I have formed a new social group, anyone who wants to join this non modded by invite only kink tank must bribe me.

just think we could be bitching  about yooooooooooooouuuuuuu


----------



## kadesma (Aug 16, 2012)

Bolas De Fraile said:


> I have formed a new social group, anyone who wants to join this non modded by invite only kink tank must bribe me.
> 
> just think we could be bitching  about yooooooooooooouuuuuuu


Well now I resemble that.
kades


----------



## FrankZ (Aug 16, 2012)

Bolas De Fraile said:


> I have formed a new social group, anyone who wants to join this non modded by invite only kink tank must bribe me.
> 
> just think we could be bitching  about yooooooooooooouuuuuuu



At this point I should point out that there is no "non modded" area on Discuss Cooking.  Our site rules apply to *ALL* areas of the site, public posts, social groups, link gallery, user albums and private messages.


----------



## msmofet (Aug 16, 2012)

Devils advocate warning!!
Don't shoot me.

And I suppose *NO ONE EVERY* goes to recipe/food/cooking sites to look for recipes or ideas? Sites need clicks/traffic. Maybe a PRIVATE forum for members only to chat is what you are looking for? Like a back room? This IS a food/cooking/recipe forum after all. I do understand the reason behind the request but I do go to cooking sites for inspiration and HATE being told I *HAVE* to register to look at recipes. I can't stand all the spam I get afterwards. BUT I don't think anyone should highjack/ plagiarize others work.


----------



## taxlady (Aug 16, 2012)

msmofet said:


> Devils advocate warning!!
> Don't shoot me.
> 
> And I suppose *NO ONE EVERY* goes to recipe/food/cooking sites to look for recipes or ideas? Sites need clicks/traffic. Maybe a PRIVATE forum for members only to chat is what you are looking for? Like a back room? This IS a food/cooking/recipe forum after all. I do understand the reason behind the request but I do go to cooking sites for inspiration and HATE being told I *HAVE* to register to look at recipes. I can't stand all the spam I get afterwards. BUT I don't think anyone should highjack/ plagiarize others work.


That is exactly what I want.


----------



## chopper (Aug 16, 2012)

TATTRAT said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## chopper (Aug 16, 2012)

msmofet said:
			
		

> Devils advocate warning!!
> Don't shoot me.
> 
> And I suppose NO ONE EVERY goes to recipe/food/cooking sites to look for recipes or ideas? Sites need clicks/traffic. Maybe a PRIVATE forum for members only to chat is what you are looking for? Like a back room? This IS a food/cooking/recipe forum after all. I do understand the reason behind the request but I do go to cooking sites for inspiration and HATE being told I HAVE to register to look at recipes. I can't stand all the spam I get afterwards. BUT I don't think anyone should highjack/ plagiarize others work.



+1


----------



## CWS4322 (Aug 16, 2012)

Since I started this thread, I will comment yet again. The point was that guests could see posts (such as recipes), but not page-jack them (although, I am somewhat clueless as to how threads were page-jacked).


----------



## FrankZ (Aug 17, 2012)

Ifn' they can see em they can copy them (and steal) them.


----------



## Gravy Queen (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm in favour of a forum which doesnt have so much open to the public. So I understand what CWS is getting at.

I have run a private forum for many years. I was a member of open forums and we had a few break off groups for those who wished to communicate but not in such an open manner. This isnt about bitching or gossiping but it was about making new friendships and being able to share things you couldnt share on an open site. Since then many of us have built very firm relationships, and have met in real life too now.


----------



## Alix (Aug 17, 2012)

FrankZ said:


> Ifn' they can see em they can copy them (and steal) them.



+1. That's just the nature of the beast on the internet. Stuff like that happens all the time. It doesn't change anything about DC, and the folks who stumble onto those other sites soon leave because of the lack of connection. People *stay *at DC, not for the recipes, but for the interaction with their friends. 

There have been rumblings before about member's only area. I am passionately and adamantly opposed to that. We have a COMMUNITY here that behaves like a family and a "members only" area will diminish that. Ignore the occasional bit of stupidity, and let the Mods and the owner manage anything that needs to be managed. 

If the PTB decide on a Member's Only area, I hope they charge for it. Could be a nice little extra money maker for Andy R. I, for one, will not be participating in that. I've stayed at DC for 10 years because of the friendships and the atmosphere, I don't want to see that ruined.


----------



## Andy M. (Aug 17, 2012)

Alix, +1


----------



## Cerise (Aug 17, 2012)

Gravy Queen said:


> I'm in favour of a forum which doesnt have so much open to the public. So* I understand what CWS is getting at.*
> 
> I have run a private forum for many years. I was a member of open forums and we had a few break off groups for those who wished to communicate but not in such an open manner. *This isnt about bitching or gossiping* but it was about making new friendships and being able to share things you couldnt share on an open site. Since then many of us have built very firm relationships, and have met in real life too now.


 
I "understood" what CWS was getting at, when same explained it back on page 1 (re hijacking threads).

As far as "gossiping" (to use my words, again), I was referring to my experience on a different site, where members needed permission to join a group (started by members). After I was accepted into the private group, I didn't appreciate the gossiping & badmouthing of other members, so I left.

Noone is saying friendships cannot be made. They can here via PMs, etc.

TaxLady re not wanting to post a pic in public: I tried posting it in my user profile. The problem was, when I set it to be viewed by friends, after I logged out, it could be still be viewed by all.

Re posts in general, lately I've seen certain members nitpicking & being contrary to my posts. When such activity continues, people walk; & certain members have for the same reasons.


----------



## Alix (Aug 17, 2012)

I never said anything about gossiping or suggested that was what I figured would happen behind closed doors. That was entirely your own invention Cerise. I'm sorry my words brought that up for you, but I didn't suggest or imply that. This is not a nitpick or anything of that nature, its a clarification of my own post.  

I meant exactly what I said, a member's only area will diminish the feeling of community here at DC. If there is an area where Member's are allowed but others aren't, then they tend to spend more time there and not with folks just arriving. The sense of welcoming is lost and the sense of community is gone. As for friendships, well I have several on here that I established via the public boards. I PM rarely.  

Like anything else, if you establish any kind of separation, or an Elite it causes friction and ill will. Its just human nature. 

This has come up because of some stupid "post jacking", which in the grand scheme of things is really not that big a deal. If you post on the Net, your words can be c&p with no attribution from here to kingdom come. Its not worth the headache. If you don't want your words shared, don't post. Its just that simple. Its not fair, or ideal, it just is. 

Again, IMO just ignore stupid crap and let those who are mandated to deal with it do so. Keep posting and having fun.


----------



## Cerise (Aug 17, 2012)

Alix said:


> I never said anything about gossiping or suggested that was what I figured would happen behind closed doors. That was entirely your own invention Cerise. I'm sorry my words brought that up for you, but I didn't suggest or imply that. This is not a nitpick or anything of that nature, its a clarification of my own post.
> 
> I meant exactly what I said, a member's only area will diminish the feeling of community here at DC. If there is an area where Member's are allowed but others aren't, then they tend to spend more time there and not with folks just arriving. The sense of welcoming is lost and the sense of community is gone. As for friendships, well I have several on here that I established via the public boards. I PM rarely.
> 
> ...


 
I wasn't referring to your post, nor have I read your posts, I quoted someone elses.


----------



## Greg Who Cooks (Aug 17, 2012)

There is a way this could be done and the forum's vBulletin software supports it. All that would be necessary would be to create a new forum section, perhaps call it "Members Only," and set the permissions so that a member has to be logged in to view or post in that area.

Many forums have such an area. The advantage of doing so is that robot scripts and search engines cannot access it because they do not possess the capability of logging in. Search engines like Google would not be able to access it, and the rip-off website we were discussing would not be able to copy the posts from that forum.

It's only a small amount of security though. Obviously anybody who wants to see what's in it has only to create a free account and they can see it. It wouldn't be impossible to write a script capable of that too, but probably wouldn't be worth the hacker's effort as in the recent incident.

(And anyway the hacker site just wanted just enough content to fool search engines. It appeared to me that most but not all DC forum areas were being duplicated. I doubt the hacker would bother. It wouldn't be important to what he's doing.)

A more extreme option would be to create a private forum area. One such forum where I'm a member has a NSFW section (not suitable for work) which allows more adult content than the general forum areas. Members must request a permission to be added to their account to access the area. This is done to ensure that non-adults cannot view the material, and the forum management decides on a case-by-case basis whether they believe the member is an adult, usually by considering the members previous posts on the forum. (The title of the area can be seen by public but none of the contents. The description says to contact an admin to request access.) Of course this would place an additional work load on DC management, so only they could decide if it was worth the effort.

I don't see any particular need for either, but then I'm not intending to post any private family pictures or discuss personal information I don't want on the Internet.

However, the best reason to have an area where members must login to see it is to have a place where you can discuss topics that you don't want the search engines to index, so that whatever you say there won't be searchable by Google.


----------



## FrankZ (Aug 17, 2012)

Thank you everyone for the suggestions.  This thread really has run its course.


----------

