|
Grex > Coop9 > #27: Motion: To allow anonymous reading via Backtalk | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 624 responses total. |
dang
|
|
response 36 of 624:
| 
Dec 22 21:24 UTC 1996 |
And as far as newuser forcing them to read what grex is about, it doesn't.
The last few times I've run newuser, web newsuser especially, I didn't read
a single thing that wasn't a question I had to answer. Why should any veteran
web user, used to filling out forms at the drop of a hat, read all the
"extraneous" information that goes with the form?
|
janc
|
|
response 37 of 624:
|
Dec 23 02:50 UTC 1996 |
Web newuser has recently been upgraded to show people a bit more information.
That doesn't mean people read it.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 38 of 624:
|
Dec 23 03:29 UTC 1996 |
I doubt many people read the information presented in the newuser
program. There is so much information, that most people probably just
hit "ENTER to CONTINUE" through the entire thing.
|
tsty
|
|
response 39 of 624:
|
Dec 23 04:46 UTC 1996 |
since the threshold of effort for gaining a personal grex shell account
is *so* low, why notkeep reading of the conferences above that threshold?
doing otherwise cheapens grex.
|
janc
|
|
response 40 of 624:
|
Dec 23 16:44 UTC 1996 |
But Grex is *supposed* to be cheap.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 41 of 624:
|
Dec 23 17:34 UTC 1996 |
If you want to whet the web user's appetite, show him a list of conferences,
and maybe even the list of items for each. If it looks interesting enough,
he'll probably take the extra step to do the "registration" thingie...
|
popcorn
|
|
response 42 of 624:
|
Dec 25 01:12 UTC 1996 |
I went looking at firefly recently. You have to create an account there
before they'll let you in. I wanted to see what it was before I gave them
enough info to create an account. I'm sure we lose potential users that way.
About reading the info in newuser: I think it's a matter of personal style.
A lot of people, especially people who aren't too secure about their computer
knowledge, *do* read everything in newuser. A lot of other people don't.
There's no way to come up with a one-size-fits-all description of how people
run newuser.
|
scg
|
|
response 43 of 624:
|
Dec 25 05:03 UTC 1996 |
I would really like to throw out all the text in newuser and rewrite it from
scratch, at some point, with an emphasis on keeping it brief. Over the years
we've thrown more and more in, without being able to get anybody to agree to
taking anything out. Cutting newuser text seems about as hard as cutting the
Federal Budget.
|
nephi
|
|
response 44 of 624:
|
Dec 25 05:31 UTC 1996 |
I like the idea of "anonymous" reading of conferences.
What harm can come by not making everyone answer a bunch of
questions before they view a conference? Selena? What harm?
|
robh
|
|
response 45 of 624:
|
Dec 25 07:23 UTC 1996 |
I won't presume to answer fo selena, but my own opinion:
I don't like the idea of hordes of invisible users reading
the conferences. Especially conferences with sensitive
material, like Sexuality and Recovery. If registration
is so trivial, then make them do it. What harm is there
in making people register, Mike? What harm?
|
robh
|
|
response 46 of 624:
|
Dec 25 07:33 UTC 1996 |
And something I almost forgot to mention: How much bandwidth
do you think we're going to have sucked up if we make the
Sex conference available to anyone on the Web? How many thousands
of people are out there running searches on "sex" who would just
love to come to a place where they can read about the subject
from their browser without having to register? This could be
worse for us than any of the "high bandwidth" personal pages that
we've dealt with before. Need I remind everyone how many hits
the "Brandi" story got in the very limited time it was available?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 47 of 624:
|
Dec 25 14:12 UTC 1996 |
Running newuser doesn't make anyone less anonymous and it
does keep folks from taking a peek and seeing if there is
enough here of interest. I support anonymous reading.
|
dang
|
|
response 48 of 624:
|
Dec 25 15:58 UTC 1996 |
Rob: The web searchers won't index the conferences. This has to do with the
way backtalk is implimented. So, you won't find hords of people doing
searches on sex and finding the grex sexuality cf. Unless, of course, someone
posts portions of the sexuality cf on a normal page. Then they could get
indexed.
|
janc
|
|
response 49 of 624:
|
Dec 25 17:07 UTC 1996 |
Web searchers usually won't index anything that is recognizably the output
of a CGI program, because, after all, it will probably be different when the
next person accesses it. So web searchers will probably choose not to index
backtalk pages even though they could. I make no guarantees though.
|
remmers
|
|
response 50 of 624:
|
Dec 25 18:59 UTC 1996 |
Re #48: ...and people could post portions of the sexuality cf
on a normal page now. Has nothing to do with Backtalk access.
|
robh
|
|
response 51 of 624:
|
Dec 26 00:27 UTC 1996 |
I dunno, I'd sure expect some of the "adult links" pages to put
a pointer to the Sex conf's main page, if it were accessible.
(I don't know why I'm bothering to argue this, I know I'm going
to get steamrollered anyway...)
|
dang
|
|
response 52 of 624:
|
Dec 26 01:26 UTC 1996 |
It's a good principle to argue. :)
I do see your point. If it were to get indexed, we'd be swamped.
|
brighn
|
|
response 53 of 624:
|
Dec 26 04:36 UTC 1996 |
My comment waaaaay back there was not intended as a personal threat.
I am opposed to this motion for two reasons:
(1) It may create unpleasant legal ramifications for Grex. A copyright mawsuit
that Grex wins and doesn't have to pay for (in the long run) is still a
copyright lawsuit that Grex doesn't have the money to fight up front. and
there *is* a potential lawsuit here, as incredulous as Jan C and others have
appeared in the past. Do we really want a lawsuit over a convenience for a
bunch of Websurfers, 99% of whom will surf on anyway?
(2) It will create what is to me a hostile environment. I will cease to wish
to continue being a user of Grex. I have threatened as much in the past. A
motion which loses currently active Grex users (I have knowledge of at least
one other person who will not only leave Grex, but will delete ALL of her
items and MAY proceed with a lawsuit) in an attempt to eke out new users seems
foolhardy to me. As they say, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
We've been through the discussion of the difference between anonymous and
unverified users of Grex (on the one hand) and anonymous users via Backtalk.
I'm truly sorry that people can't seem to see the difference, but I do feel
there is one, and I will act on this feeling (yes, prejudiced bias against
Websters) (heh, Websters, I like that one).
|
steve
|
|
response 54 of 624:
|
Dec 26 05:09 UTC 1996 |
Maybe I'm missing something. Can you elaborate Brighn, why "anonymous"
reading via BackTake is so much worse? Technically speaking, I just don't
see it. Technically, someone who comes in via BackTalk is less anonymous,
since we'll know exactly each and everything they do while reading. That
isn't the case with a telnet user, who also can be rather anonymous since
they don't have to give anything "real" information wise. Even worse,
from the technical viewpoint are the dialup users: thats *REALLY* anonymous
unless we get a Malicious Call Trace (MCT) going, which involves both
Ameritech and law enforcement agencies. But I don't hear people making
noise about those forms of anonymous interactions on Grex.
Why is that? What am I missing here? Please forgive this question
but maybe if you state it again I'll understand it more, or something.
From my viewpoint I think this is the most irelevent issue that
obviously isn't irrelevant to users, that Grex has ever had.
|
nephi
|
|
response 55 of 624:
|
Dec 26 05:49 UTC 1996 |
> I won't presume to answer fo selena, but my own opinion:
> I don't like the idea of hordes of invisible users reading
> the conferences.
>
Isn't that the way it is now, Rob? Isn't that exactly what
we're trying to do here? Aren't we trying to get as many
people as possible to derive benefit from our conferences?
Are you saying that you don't want growth of any kind? Are
you saying that you just don't want any web-based growth?
Are you saying that we shouldn't allow invisible users here
anymore?
> Especially conferences with sensitive material, like
> Sexuality and Recovery.
This confuses me. People (perhaps not including you) have
talked about "intended audiences", and how people who
aren't in an "intended audience" shouldn't have access to
certain content here. I'd have to say that everyone who
thinks that when they post a response to a conference on
Grex assumes less of an audience than the entire planet is
sadly mistaken. I've read posts here dating from 1992 --
from people who don't use this system anymore -- from
people who don't even want to be associated with this
system anymore -- even from people who are no longer alive.
In the sexuality conference, I've read all sorts of
intimate details of some people's lives years after they've
left the system. I certainly wasn't part of their intended
audience. What people say here on Grex is more public
domain than if they had shouted it from a roof-top in Times
Square.
> If registration is so trivial, then make them do it. What
> harm is there in making people register, Mike? What harm?
>
Good debating tactic -- turning the question back on me. I
guess I come on a little strong here . . . like perhaps I
want to steamroll you. However, that is not the case. If
you can make me understand what bad things will happen if we
allow "anonymous" reading via Backtalk, I certainly won't
vote the wrong way. But you've got to make me understand --
you can't just throw up your hands and say that I just don't
get it -- that I'm the enemy. And I think this applies for
most everyone here. No one's out to get anyone. No one's
out to steamroll anything. It's just that right now we think
allowing "anonymous" reading via Backtalk is in Grex's best
interests.
And to answer your question, I don't think that any great
harm will come to Grex if we don't allow "anonymous" reading
via Backtalk. I do think that Grex will be a little poorer
in that we'll have fewer conference participants and a higher
emailer to conferencer ratio than otherwise, but that's just
the way Grex is right now, and we're obviously surviving.
However, it's not fear of harm that causes me to desire this
change. It's because I think we can make Grex a better place.
I think that part of the purpose of Grex is to spread online
conferencing to as many people as possible. I think that by
allowing people to read our conferences "anonymously" is the
best sort of advertisement we could hope for. People who are
attracted to the Grexian flavour of online conferencing will
be drawn by it, while people who aren't, won't bother to take
out accounts. And if hoards of people feel more comfortable
reading the Sexuality conference without having accounts, I
think that is terrific. I would love to see Grex get flooded
by *conferencing* for a change. We should be proud of our
conferences, not embarrassed. Our conferences are *us*.
I think I'll quit for now, before I'm percieved to be rambling.
Or maybe it's too late. 8^)
|
robh
|
|
response 56 of 624:
|
Dec 26 06:31 UTC 1996 |
I think it's a bit late for that. >8) Okay, I'm a
horrible debater, always have been, so I know I can't express
myself here as well as others could. And since I know that
everyone else (except Selena, of course) disagrees with me,
I see little point in continuing. Sure, go ahead, vote in
favor of it. It's gonna win anyway.
|
robh
|
|
response 57 of 624:
|
Dec 26 07:45 UTC 1996 |
But to clarify on one point (didn't really think I'd be able
to stay out of it, eh?), I don't think that anyone on Grex is
targetting me personally. I just ended up on the wrong side
of the line for this topic.
|
brighn
|
|
response 58 of 624:
|
Dec 26 13:01 UTC 1996 |
If we ran a gun production company that had two basic models, a pistol and
a machine gun, and the pistol currently had a design flaw that caused the
pistol to occasionally blow up in the users hand, would the sale of said
pistol justify incorporating the same design flaw into the machine gun?
I think people who tell me that my argumentation is trivial because we already
allow anonymous reads at the telnet and dialin levels fail to remember that
I consider anonymous reads *at any level* to be a problem. Just because we
have them doesn't justify expanding them.
My problems regard quntity and quality. A different sort of user Websurfs than
Netsurfs. A different sort of user who Websurfs would use anonymous reads than
hnadle-based reads. And at any rate many, many, many, many more users Websurf
than Netsurf.
We have a malfunctioning pistol and a functional machine gun. Just because
we refuse to fix the pistol doesn't mean we should break the machine gun.
|
remmers
|
|
response 59 of 624:
|
Dec 26 13:37 UTC 1996 |
Well, I guess we differ in our basic premises then, because what
you consider to be a design flaw, I don't.
|
robh
|
|
response 60 of 624:
|
Dec 26 20:00 UTC 1996 |
And I do. And I doubt that arguing about it is going to convince
me, or brighn, or remmers.
*sigh* Let's just get the vote over with so we can get on with
our lives, eh?
|