profile privacy in IPB 4

[wingman23]

Just wondering if there is any chance of this being implemented. I know we knocked this subject about ages ago but still think its important to address in the light of this modernization of the software.

Its all about giving members a choice, even a simple one, (do i want non friends to be able to see my profile page).

Even the " its good to share everything, privacy sucks" facebook, allows this option..

Any hope at all for this very important feature being built in this time :thumbsup:

[CallieJo]

Count my vote once again for this. Most people are accustomed to this type of profile privacy. Let the end-user have a choice, please.

I would like to add that an add as friend link should be on the profile if the profile is set to friends only so people can request to be their friend from the profile.

[Jim McClain]

I'd like to add my hope for developing this feature too. I have a forum membership that consists of professionals and consumers/DIYers. I'd like to be able to have various levels of privacy, if only to enhance SEO. My pro members have a number of custom fields where they can add information that is all industry related. It's highly crawlable and relevant to my site content. However, the consumer/DIY members will often add content in those profile fields that have nothing at all to do with my niche.

I would like all members of my site to be able to view member profiles and for my members to be able to hide their profile, or portions of it, if they want. But the only profiles I want unregistered visitors (which include search engine spiders) to be able to see are those of my pro members (if they choose to be visible).

Best R'gards,

Jim

[Charles]

I understand the urge to compare to Facebook but you should resist that urge :smile:

Your profile on a public community is, by its very nature, public. Keep in mind your profile in our software only displays content you have posted in an area people have access to.

So if I click your profile I will only see content you have posted in areas that I have access to. This means that like if I post in a private staff area and you click my profile you won't see that but if a staff person clicks it then they will see it. An example here is our Client Lounge. If someone is a client and clicks your profile they will see topics you post there but a non-client would have no idea.

This is all content that's already been decided if it's public or private on your behalf by the administrator of the site depending on their user permissions.

So again I get what you're thinking but if you take a step back... what exactly would you be making "private" in your profile?

[GreenLinks]

Forums and Social Networks differ , i fully agree on that , however there is not much difference from end user stand point. Therefor on all communities users should be able to choose whom can view specific sections of their profiles. It is a right you supply to your users. I may choose to become part of a community to gather/supply information but that shouldn't mean that i have to share every profile related information with everyone inside the community.

[Charles]

But what are you restricting exactly?

[GreenLinks]

But what are you restricting exactly?

Starting with personal information : http://d.pr/i/E7XQ

Then i can also make my profile private which will eventually make it harder for any other user to find my content ;)

Of course if he is dedicated , he will reach that information in the end , but at least my status updates and other profile related information will only be visible to people i choose to share with.

[Charles]

In my opinion, as a site admin, that's not personal information. Plus that information lives in many places besides your profile. It shows in forum topics, in your user popup, it defines what permissions you have, etc. So hiding it on your profile is a false sense of privacy.

To me it just does not make sense to introduce a false sense of security by "hiding things in my profile" when everything you put in your profile on a community forum is by its nature public to all those in said community.

Put another way: on Facebook your profile is all about you. On a community your profile is about what you have done in that community. It's the opposite viewpoint.

[GreenLinks]

In my opinion, as a site admin, that's not personal information. Plus that information lives in my places besides your profile. It shows in forum topics, in your user popup, it defines what permissions you have, etc. So hiding it on your profile is a false sense of privacy.

To me it just does not make sense to introduce a false sense of security by "hiding things in my profile" when everything you put in your profile on a community forum is by its nature public to all those in said community.

Put another way: on Facebook your profile is all about you. On a community your profile is about what you have done in that community. It's the opposite viewpoint.

Charles , if we were talking about your specific website or mine , i wouldn't mind discussing all night.

However what we are discussing is as a software company , you should have that ability to offer it to your end users. Because privacy is something important for many users.

P.S : This is the second subject we are discussing about privacy :) So it is clear you and me see this differently , what my and other users request is , try to look at this subject outside of your own community scoope. Your belief about this subject should not force IPB following the same route. IPB should follow the best route for their customers ;)

[Heosforo]

ok, so is like facebook then that can't happen.. :rofl:

don't forget that many customers (and members in our communities) would appreciate this option, what's the big deal?

[Nevo]

The point is to have Profile Privacy. We understand that information is public in other areas of the site and that does not matter. If members wanted something like that, it'd be called Member Privacy, not Profile Privacy!

Invision Power Services should Implement these features, Facebook is the perfect example in comparison and 3rd party modifications to this are simply not the answer, especially not long term!

[CallieJo]

This is not something new. Other competitor forum communities already have this in their core.

The biggest point is end-user choice. Admins should have that choice to give users a choice. It's not realistic to have a one size fits all.

What should be hidden from a profile?

Everything except add as friend link, avatar/photo, & display name.

What should be hidden everywhere else?

Updates (wall updates, whatever you want to call it) should not be shown anywhere unless you are a friend.

We are not asking that posts, public info, etc. are hidden from the rest of the apps. We are asking for an option for friends only to view the profile & updates.

End-user choice is highly important to me. While not so important to others. IMHO, there should be a balance somewhere here at IPB.

Private options are already in other apps. Example: their blog can be set friends only already, etc. A major plus!!

[Rimi]

Keep it as a hook. =D =D =D =D

Charles, I think it's more like "I'd like to post my skype info on my profile, but there are certain people who I've put on my ignore list who I would not like to be able to see that information".

[Jim McClain]

In my opinion, as a site admin, that's not personal information. Plus that information lives in many places besides your profile. It shows in forum topics, in your user popup, it defines what permissions you have, etc. So hiding it on your profile is a false sense of privacy.

To me it just does not make sense to introduce a false sense of security by "hiding things in my profile" when everything you put in your profile on a community forum is by its nature public to all those in said community.

Put another way: on Facebook your profile is all about you. On a community your profile is about what you have done in that community. It's the opposite viewpoint.

I think your opinion of forum profiles is dated. It might apply to quite a few forums, but you claim to be an enterprise solution, so that is what I am addressing this as. My site might be small potatoes, but it is becoming one of the most popular in its niche.

Profiles on my site have a lot of potential. But because my members are a mixture of professionals within my industry niche and consumers/DIYers who aren't, the power of my member profiles as a whole can be seriously diluted with miscellaneous information that has nothing at all to do with my industry. Take, for instance, the 2 members whose profile pages I use to illustrate my point.

This user, MarmoMan, is a pro in his field. The information he provides is relevant to the industry and can be used as a kind of business listing. Anyone who visits the site can view his profile and see his industry status, work history and accomplishments and contact him in various manners that can be very beneficial to him. This kind of profile is an asset to my site.

This user, arrowpawn, is a consumer who came to us about flooring issues he/she was having, got answers and hasn't returned since. But the member made sure to leave a lasting impression I only discovered tonight. In addition to all the non-industry related information on the About Me tab, there is contact information, including a link to a website, on the Contact Info tab. This is not good for my site and is considered spam - even though they are a legitimate company. They have taken advantage of the inability I have to make certain profile information and certain user groups hidden from search spiders and non-members.

IPS4.x has great potential to turn profile pages into an asset for many forums. It could have the ability to add fields relevant to the site's focus, turn privacy on and off for certain of those fields, make some/all fields admin controllable and add SEO to the profile, among other options. The user popup in other areas of the site should include only information the admin deems important on a user category basis and also allow some user configuration.

The point I want to make to you is that everything put in a profile does NOT have to be public, especially if you want to have more control over the relevant content of your website. And I am not one that will compare this feature to facebook. My hope is that it will be incomparable to any other forum product available. You have the resources, the skill and the potential to develop IPS profiles into more than just a miscellaneous forum feature.

Thanks for listening,

Jim

[CallieJo]

My hope is that it will be incomparable to any other forum product available. You have the resources, the skill and the potential to develop IPS profiles into more than just a miscellaneous forum feature.

Jim, very well said!

It would be nice if IPB was the community to transform profiles into something inspiring and of more importance for communities.

[bfarber]

[snipped]

Thanks for listening,

Jim

Jim, very well said!

It would be nice if IPB was the community to transform profiles into something inspiring and of more importance for communities.

Perhaps....but what Jim outlined has absolutely nothing at all to do with per-user profile privacy options. :) What Jim suggested (and I've read his same suggestion, without screenshots, in at least one other topic already) has to do with administrators defining which users can fill in some or all of their profile information, or blocking profiles from users in one group from other user groups....e.g. admin-based profile privacy rather than user-specified profile privacy.

[Charles]

Yes and that's what I meant by "what are you blocking?" because often when topics come up like this what people really want isn't actually what they're asking for :)

Jim description had zero to do with profile privacy as Brandon pointed out.

[dr. Jekyll]

Perhaps....but what Jim outlined has absolutely nothing at all to do with per-user profile privacy options.

....or maybe he meant to say that all our personal information (friends, what we like and do not like, gender; location; contact informatios as email, Skype, telephone number, etc..) will be visible ONLY to members who are added as friends and not to others.

[Jim McClain]

Perhaps....but what Jim outlined has absolutely nothing at all to do with per-user profile privacy options. :smile: What Jim suggested (and I've read his same suggestion, without screenshots, in at least one other topic already) has to do with administrators defining which users can fill in some or all of their profile information, or blocking profiles from users in one group from other user groups....e.g. admin-based profile privacy rather than user-specified profile privacy.

Yes and that's what I meant by "what are you blocking?" because often when topics come up like this what people really want isn't actually what they're asking for :smile:

Jim description had zero to do with profile privacy as Brandon pointed out.

I'm sorry you two think my posts were off-topic. I'm a bit offended that it has been dismissed with a "snip." I assumed because the topic title was "profile privacy" that it wouldn't matter if it was member-based or admin-based privacy - and in fact, it's both. Unfortunately for me, you didn't see that, even though I thought I made that apparent in my first reply to this topic.

....or maybe he meant to say that all our personal information (friends, what we like and do not like, gender; location; contact informatios as email, Skype, telephone number, etc..) will be visible ONLY to members who are added as friends and not to others.

Well, that and more. If we are only allowed to address the issue of member-based profile privacy, then I hope that what IPS might take away from my posts is this: Members should be able to make those individual options visible to all members, only friends/contacts or only members of defined user groups (or whatever it's called in IPS).

If the discussion of admin-based privacy options for profiles belongs in a different topic, then someone please point me the way?

Thanks,

Jim

[CallieJo]

Perhaps....but what Jim outlined has absolutely nothing at all to do with per-user profile privacy options. :smile:

I realize that. My reply was based on the part I quoted. ;) I highly support making profiles more useful.

I'd be content with just >end-user choice at the very least. But, I do believe Jim has a great suggestion as well. It could be very useful as he stated and in many other ways. Let admins choose who has a choice based on usergroups.

[TrixieTang]

My biggest complaint about XenForo is that "This member limits who may view their full profile." garbage. There's profile privacy (which for the most part I think is just a false sense of security) and then there's just plain bad software design - I wouldn't have issues with members being able to hide their D.O.B, profile comments and stuff like that, but once you start letting members prevent others from viewing their profile at all and replace it with an error screen... then you've clearly crossed a line...

What I'm saying is this, certain portions of member profiles should ALWAYS be accessible to registered members, and those portions include forum related data, searching options and such. But I wouldn't have any issues with members limiting who can see their D.O.B, profile comments or limiting who can PM them. (So long as admin/staff PMs can't be ignored.)

[hmikko]

My humble opinion is that there should be only 1 option for privacy in your profile. As email address is required for all users then there should be a slide button behind your email address with option "Show publicly in my profile". Any other fields (Skype, phone etc.) are optional and if you want this information to be private then don't fill out those fields.

Other things like your profile picture, profile statistics and feed etc. are part of getting involved with your community's activity. Actually I'm very surprised about these privacy topics all over the Internet. If you want certain things to be private then you shouldn't write this information to the Internet. Like if I'm posting in some community, I would like to know whom I'm communicating with. I found it really annoying talking with incognitos in all topics. Especially in market topics I have.

For me it's discussion board not social network channel :)

[TwistedMerlin]

Snip

For me it's discussion board not social network channel :)

This.

[Jim McClain]

I think it's safe to say the majority of forum members and administrators disagree with that philosophy.

It's an unfortunate fact that some manufacturers, workroom managers and retailers in my industry will not allow their employees to participate on industry related forums for fear the opinions and information they disseminate will be seen as "official." They don't want the liability or the internal politics - I've been told in person that they don't want their employees consorting with the competition. It seems like their only official spokesperson can be someone in marketing. And we all know how truthful marketing geniuses are. ;)

I have members of my forum that need more privacy than others and I am happy to provide that for them so that I can also provide my other members and visitors with the best minds and resultant information that can be found on the interweb. The pro members of my site help each other to be better at what they do, even though some compete for the same market and the same customers. If I didn't allow them some anonymity, didn't provide them with a group of forums that had pros-only access and allow them some profile privacy, then I would not have the quality of content I get in the public forums and other content areas.

I've struggled with my site for nearly 8 years to get where we are (not to mention a previous failed attempt in the same niche) and it is nowhere near what I think the potential is, especially with the promise of a product like IPS4. Profile privacy is an important component of that. I doubt seriously that I am alone as a forum owner/administrator in that regard.

As an aside, I think a member's email address should never be public and I would never enable that option, if available in the ACP.

Jim

[TwistedMerlin]

I think it's safe to say the majority of forum members and administrators disagree with that philosophy.

It's an unfortunate fact that some manufacturers, workroom managers and retailers in my industry will not allow their employees to participate on industry related forums for fear the opinions and information they disseminate will be seen as "official." They don't want the liability or the internal politics - I've been told in person that they don't want their employees consorting with the competition. It seems like their only official spokesperson can be someone in marketing. And we all know how truthful marketing geniuses are. ;)

I have members of my forum that need more privacy than others and I am happy to provide that for them so that I can also provide my other members and visitors with the best minds and resultant information that can be found on the interweb. The pro members of my site help each other to be better at what they do, even though some compete for the same market and the same customers. If I didn't allow them some anonymity, didn't provide them with a group of forums that had pros-only access and allow them some profile privacy, then I would not have the quality of content I get in the public forums and other content areas.

I've struggled with my site for nearly 8 years to get where we are (not to mention a previous failed attempt in the same niche) and it is nowhere near what I think the potential is, especially with the promise of a product like IPS4. Profile privacy is an important component of that. I doubt seriously that I am alone as a forum owner/administrator in that regard.

As an aside, I think a member's email address should never be public and I would never enable that option, if available in the ACP.

Jim

But that is the beauty of a web forum, you can already achieve anonymity.
I persanoally went years without ever revealing revealing so much as my age.

There is already plenty that can be done with existing methods to remain anonymous.