Members only area?

[Sac Arrow]

Any possibility of getting forum (maybe some sub-forum of Hangar Talk, if not Hangar Talk itself) to have members only access? I.e. so the search bots don't get to it?

 

[EdFred]

And can we get a jacket issued with it?

 

[Mike Smith]

And can we get a jacket issued with it?

I see what you did there....................

 

[jason]

Any possibility of getting forum (maybe some sub-forum of Hangar Talk, if not Hangar Talk itself) to have members only access? I.e. so the search bots don't get to it?

We can certainly consider it...but it has been brought up a couple of times and we've never moved on it.

What would you see as the primary benefit of such an area? What do you see it being used for? General discussion or only those matters that require some level of discretion? There are several aviation boards that are 100% private and they have not grown at the same rate that we have (which is, of course, their choice)...but I'd say that accessibility to our content has been one of the main driving factors behind our growth.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

What problem is being addressed? I missed it.

 

[Sac Arrow]

We can certainly consider it...but it has been brought up a couple of times and we've never moved on it.

What would you see as the primary benefit of such an area? What do you see it being used for? General discussion or only those matters that require some level of discretion? There are several aviation boards that are 100% private and they have not grown at the same rate that we have (which is, of course, their choice)...but I'd say that accessibility to our content has been one of the main driving factors behind our growth.

I'm thinking a general discussion area. I get the whole point of a public access site for growth and publicity. For example at gsxr.com we have a "lobby" forum that is members only, and the rest of the site is public. It seems to work out pretty well.

Certainly there are things I would be more candid about posting if a simple Google search didn't link back to it. I mean if I'm the only one that thinks it's a good idea, then don't bother.

 

[EdFred]

Why? You claim no one knows who you are anyway. So, any 'candid' posting shouldn't reveal who you are to the googlebots.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Why? You claim no one knows who you are anyway. So, any 'candid' posting shouldn't reveal who you are to the googlebots.

You don't like the idea. I get it. How about instead of attacking me, why don't you just state why you think it's a bad idea?

And by the way, I've never made any such claim. A lot of people know me.

 

[wsuffa]

So, a resurrection of Spin Zone? No thanks.

It's been discussed a number of times before and (when I was on the MC) debated quite a bit. In the end, we felt that having such a forum would detract from the main board and become more Spin Zone-like (SZ was not indexed by the search engines). I personally think that the open forum tends to make folks a bit more circumspect in what they write.

I'm curious: what topics do you think would be better suited to a "member's only" area than the public areas?

 

[eman1200]

huh uh, huhuh, you said 'member'

 

[timwinters]

So, a resurrection of Spin Zone? No thanks.

I don't think anyone mentioned politics. It's my understanding that the request is to simply have an area that can't be searched by bots or entered into unless you're a member. I can see some benefits. In my case, I'd finally be able to tell @TangoWhiskey and @Everskyward what I truly think about them.

 

[Everskyward]

The problem I see is that everyone who is a member (only members can post now, except for on the forums where we allow unregistered users) will gravitate to posting on the private forum since I'm guessing most people's instinct is to be part of a closed group.

 

[denverpilot]

It seems like the real thing being asked here is whether or not to encourage bots to index the site. That's easily changeable and not related to a need for a special members-only area.

(I'm not advocating either way, I'm just pointing out that the root-cause problem being tackled is basically not having a disallowed robots.txt file.

 

[Everskyward]

It seems like the real thing being asked here is whether or not to encourage bots to index the site. That's easily changeable and not related to a need for a special members-only area.

(I'm not advocating either way, I'm just pointing out that the root-cause problem being tackled is basically not having a disallowed robots.txt file.

I thought that one of the features (not a bug) of this site is that it is easily found by search engines. In fact I believe it was specifically set up that way. This also means that people's posts are easily found.

Note that this decision was made long before I was a mod, but I accept the way it is.

 

[Norman]

Easily found is, IMO, great. Searchable by bots, not such a good idea.

 

[EdFred]

Easily found is, IMO, great. Searchable by bots, not such a good idea.

Ummmmmm, that's how it's easily found.

 

[Stevel]

I suspect that such a sub-forum would have similar advantages and disadvantages to the "Last" thread over on Purple.

 

[kayoh190]

I used to be a frequent poster at a board that set up a private area for members that contributed financially. It actually worked really well, and served as a bit of a 'thank you' to those that donated money. On the upside, people in the private area were more open about their real lives, and several friendships and even a marriage resulted from the camaraderie there.

The downside is that the moderators have a tougher job. All the normal TOS rules applied of course, but you could tell the moderation was a little more relaxed. That's a good thing, but it was also a slippery slope, and a tightrope the mods needed to walk. The other problem is that there's a tendency for things to get a little cliquish, and the moderators had to make sure people weren't talking trash about folks on the outside of the private area. That was a big no-no.

But overall I really liked it. I know that's not what we're talking about here, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[Ravioli]

having the site indexed is a good thing. It might even someday eliminate all the "use search" posts when someone asks a routine question.

Q: High wing or low wing?
A: Use search, this is covered
Reply1: I tried [fill in the search engine] and didn't see anything from here
A: You need to go to the member area and use the PoA search
Reply2: How convenient?
A: Insert the "go start your own board and run it your way" diatribe here.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

Low wing.

 

[ARFlyer]

I don't think anyone mentioned politics. It's my understanding that the request is to simply have an area that can't be searched by bots or entered into unless you're a member. I can see some benefits. In my case, I'd finally be able to tell @TangoWhiskey and @Everskyward what I truly think about them.

No, no Tim. It's has always been you an @SixPapaCharlie . But the group already knows how y'all feel together.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

And sometimes we sneak @EdFred in.

 

[denverpilot]

... several friendships and even a marriage resulted from the camaraderie there.

PoA already has those covered without a private area, so I guess there's no need. Two marriages even, I think.