# No guest read-access to forums?



## Pengu (Feb 19, 2003)

It has come to my attention that people have to log-in to read some/all of the forums on here. I've never seen an option to make an individual thread "private" or whatever, so i'm assuming it's site-wide. Why was this done? Can it be un-done? 

Pengu


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 19, 2003)

Site-wide policy, not just for some threads. 

It _could_ be undone with one or two clicks by the admins. Why?


----------



## gatorparrots (Feb 19, 2003)

It definitely limits exposure to limit guest access to threads and it prevents much of the site content from being indexed by spiders. It would definitely benefit the site to allow guest read-access for forums (although the Lounge and other such forums could be kept members-only).


----------



## twister (Feb 19, 2003)

I don't like that either.  Sometimes i'm at school and wanna read replys but i have to log in.  And if i forget to log out anyone could use my account.  Sad

Also if i were coming here for the first time i probably wouldn't sign up because i don't sign up for stuff until i see what i'm getting into.


----------



## edX (Feb 19, 2003)

well, contrary to that opinion, registration has increased since implementing this policy. it's free after all.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 19, 2003)

If I ever post a link .. either the ones who see the link become too curious and register or then theu complain. 

Just got an email of a friend telling he managed to see a link I sent him to -  so one more new member..   (Ed, by the way - since when has this register to read been the policy? )


----------



## Pengu (Feb 19, 2003)

Ed, sure it's good to get new members. But not if we are getting new members for the sake of having new members. If the whole point of "register-to-read" is to increase the number of members, then i must say im disappointed in whoever made the decission. Forcing people to register just to read a forum is like increasing the length of a P4 pipeline. Sure it gives you a higher clock speed, but it doesnt acheive much in the long run.


----------



## edX (Feb 19, 2003)

there is an old philosophy that things that are given in a one way exchange have no value to the recipient. all we ask is that people give a little of their time. once invested of a small amount of it, people are more likely to give more of it. complain all you want, but the site has been active lately.


----------



## twister (Feb 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *complain all you want *



What we complain


----------



## gatorparrots (Feb 19, 2003)

How about a poll?


----------



## Pengu (Feb 20, 2003)

Ok. So basically, you're saying that this forum has no other way to attract new members than to FORCE them to join just so they can join?

That is disgusting.


----------



## edX (Feb 20, 2003)

i guess you're just here because we forced you 

here, let me unlock those cuffs and you can be on your way. didn't mean to keep you where you didn't want to be


----------



## Pengu (Feb 20, 2003)

No. I never claimed to be here under force. But your argument is that making people register has increased the membership of the forums. Of course it has. I'm sure the online News services that require people to register have millions of registered users. However. How many of those users only registered to read ONE article? Why not give people the choice of registering if they want to reply or post new threads, but let them read as guests.
Once again, we're getting back into the whole argument about Administrators being power-hungry control freaks. Oh. did i say control freaks? I guess that could be seen as an insult. Well. Quite frankly the idea that a forum that claims to be OPEN and UNBIASED forces people to register just to read one frickin thread is an insult.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 20, 2003)

Wait - your signatures aren't getting enough spambot visibility - that was it, right?


----------



## Pengu (Feb 20, 2003)

Yeah. That must be it. My issue with the control freak administrators is because i want spam bots to see my signature.


----------



## MRMUNCHYBUNCH (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Pengu _
> *
> Once again, we're getting back into the whole argument about Administrators being power-hungry control freaks. Oh. did i say control freaks? I guess that could be seen as an insult. Well. Quite frankly the idea that a forum that claims to be OPEN and UNBIASED forces people to register just to read one frickin thread is an insult. *




Well said Pengu!


----------



## ksv (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Pengu _
> *
> Once again, we're getting back into the whole argument about Administrators being power-hungry control freaks. Oh. did i say control freaks? I guess that could be seen as an insult. Well. Quite frankly the idea that a forum that claims to be OPEN and UNBIASED forces people to register just to read one frickin thread is an insult. *



Who ever said this forum is open and unbiased? 
Well, the 5000 who have registered the last months don't seem to agree. If having to register really is so bad, who don't they just find an other forum? Sure, it would've been different if the admins received a lot of complaints.


----------



## themacko (Feb 20, 2003)

I actually asked the site owner about this very situation a couple weeks ago, because I too find that forcing people to register  in order to simply read the forums seems extreme to me.

However, he has told me that he wants to keep it this way in order to help our community grow.  As people register for the site they tend to come back and become active while people who simply read the site usually do just that and offer no help in return to the other users.

While I understand your arguments and to a degree agree (hmm...) with them, it is not the choice of either Ed or myself.  We are simply doing what the site OWNER wants and since he is the one who pays for the site and everything involved I can't complain.

The situation is, these forums are a free source of information for the Mac community to enjoy and participate in.  The fact that we don't require anything from the users other than their registration is quite nice.  Members are not spammed with excessive ads or emails.  Members are _rarely_ asked to help the site through donations.

I think we are quite fair in the way we handle most things here.  You may disagree and that's fine, I respect your opinions.  I can only suggest that if you do not enjoy the site, the community and/or the admins there are plenty of other Mac-related forums out there for you to join (or simply read w/o having to register).  We do our best as volunteers to keep the masses happy, if that's not good enough for you I apologize.  If you do enjoy the site but have some CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM to offer, feel free.  But please try not to flame and insult us and we'll try to not flame and insult you.

And a note to MRMUNCHYBUNCH (aka cokeymon, fakeboy, herreinstein):  You've been banned from here twice, I understand that you probably have some contempt for this place but if you intend to participate and be constructive here that's fine.  However if you continue to be of no use to the site other than to complain and make trouble we'll simply ban your IP.  I don't like to be a control-freak but frankly you're just being a pain.


----------



## twister (Feb 20, 2003)

Well said


----------



## kilowatt (Mar 1, 2003)

> _Originally posted by edX _
> *there is an old philosophy that things that are given in a one way exchange have no value to the recipient. all we ask is that people give a little of their time. once invested of a small amount of it, people are more likely to give more of it. complain all you want, but the site has been active lately. *



My post here has little to do with macosx.com policy. I just wanted to point something out to ed.

There was once the philosophy of giving with out expecting return. The best gift is the one way gift.

For example, when you make soup for a homeless person, do you expect a gift in return?

Do you make a donation to a charity, and expect them to send you cookies?

No, of course you don't. The best gift is the one which *cannot* be return.

To give only to expect to be given back to is absolutely selfish.


----------

