SecondSight Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 How long, in your opinion, will it take to modify the profile system ?Thank you ! :)
Management Matt Posted January 5, 2007 Management Posted January 5, 2007 I don't really understand how it's a privacy problem. If your member doesn't wish to appear in the online list / user visiting a forum / user reading a topic / last viewed this profile then they need to log in as anonymous which is the very point of that feature.If they are happy to show up in the online list then how can they claim it's a privacy violation when they are marked as viewing a profile?The entire point of the social networking movement is to 'join' users across the globe by sharing content and friends. IPB 2.2 is no different. The 'classic' mode is there for those that don't wish for the extended 'social networking' profiles.
sunrisecc Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 The entire point of the social networking movement is to 'join' users across the globe by sharing content and friends. IPB 2.2 is no different. The 'classic' mode is there for those that don't wish for the extended 'social networking' profiles.Matt:The problem as I see it is that the choice of 'classic' mode is a board-choice rather than a member-choice. As my board has many 'whistle-blowers' (but not the majority), I had to select the 'classic' mode for all.
VelvetElvis Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 I announced a couple weeks ahead of time that this was going to happen to give users who might have a problem with it time to delete their contact lists. I run a mental health support forum and have some really chronically parinoid users as well as some who have very legitimate reasons to want their privacy protected. I've not had a single complaint about the new profiles that I didn't have about the old ones. The fact that logging in as invisible updates the last seen field is a problem, but it's been a problem for years. I could see FOAF being a problem if it was forced on people, but who uses that anyway?
SecondSight Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Hello !I don't really understand how it's a privacy problem. If your member doesn't wish to appear in the online list / user visiting a forum / user reading a topic / last viewed this profile then they need to log in as anonymous which is the very point of that feature.If they are happy to show up in the online list then how can they claim it's a privacy violation when they are marked as viewing a profile?Well, being visible in the online list / user visiting a forum / user reading a topic, as well as in a member's profile is a matter of privacy and of choice. The fact is that they didn't know that they would appear and remain in a member's profile as visitors.It's true that appearing in the online list / user visiting a forum / user reading a topic is generally accepted : wether you like it or not, you can see everyone, it's for everyone, it doesn't last long (contrarily to the fact of being the one shown in a profile). So people don't care generally (and they can also log in as anonymous) or like it and the idea they belong to a community.But, the first time they visit a profile, they are not aware that everybody will know it, and that this information will remain public for some time. Even if they accept to appear just like everybody in the online list / user visiting a forum / user reading a topic, they dislike appearing as the one who visited member A or member B profiles.Well, the solution will be to inform them of the profile functions.Anyway, visiting a profile, which contains personal information or at least information about a person (photograph, gender, place and date of birth, interests, messages written by friends, etc.), isn't the same as being in the online list, reading/posting in a topic, or visiting a forum. That's why some people don't like that everybody can know that they visited a member profile, which profile they visited, that it's written, and that this information is public for some time.The fact is that with this new profile system, my board's members now feel like they are being tracked. And they don't like it. They would like to have the choice of appearing or not in others' profiles, without being anonymous on the whole board.As for the friends/contact list, this is private information. My members didn't like to discover their contact list appeared for everyone (even if it's now named "Friends"). That's why I believe we should be able to hide it if we wish to. :)The entire point of the social networking movement is to 'join' users across the globe by sharing content and friends. IPB 2.2 is no different. The 'classic' mode is there for those that don't wish for the extended 'social networking' profiles.I agree. But, then could it be possible for users to choose which type of profile system they could use ? And also give them the choice of appearing or not in others' profiles (without being anonymous on the whole board) ?Thank you ! :)
BrainSparks Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 For what it's worth, I'd like to register a voice of agreement with Andre.Many of my members where horrified to discover that their previously private list of contacts was now suddenly available to the public.And I agree with them.This isn't a case of adjusting to a new paradigm.Rather, it's the case that "contact" simply isn't the same as "friend"."PM address book contacts" and "Friends" should be sets that are independent of each other.
BrainSparks Posted January 9, 2007 Posted January 9, 2007 The 'classic' mode is there for those that don't wish for the extended 'social networking' profiles.But the extended profiles are still visible even if the admin has opted for classic mode.To access the extended version the member simply has to know the URL, eg.:Classic:http://www.my-forum-domain.com/index.php?showuser=1Extended:http://www.my-forum-domain.com/index.php?a...ttings&id=1Come to think of it, this might be a bug. If the admin opts for classic then the extended versions shouldn't be available via URL engineering.
sunrisecc Posted January 10, 2007 Posted January 10, 2007 Rather, it's the case that "contact" simply isn't the same as "friend"."PM address book contacts" and "Friends" should be sets that are independent of each other.I completely agree. It should be addressed without having to resort to the classic style.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.