profile privacy in IPB 4

[BomAleold]

permission related for singular fields? or group?
permission option are custom or fixed before?
there are any hook/plugin already on 3.x that permise it... if ips don't provide it for 4.0 sure a developer adding this feature. is not impossible but expensive for devs to build it also because developer and other dev not collaborate to one reaource... for super ajax content there was cooperation to collect 2 or plus module/app to make same things.
with this i hope that on release of 4.0 devs are available to build this if not present. I pay more but this must be talk about developer in time not necessary now (more people not know how coding with 4.0 also if there are blog entries that talk about...)

[Matt]

I was assuming one of the main angles here was profile information. Your about me information and your contact information, for example, as well as other custom profile fields. Then there's also status updates.

An admin may wish to make profiles publicly accessible to guests, but members may want to keep their contact information or status updates hidden from members that aren't registered/friended.

Though my suggestion wasn't entirely related to profile "privacy," I do also think it would be nice to have the option to only allow personal messages from friends.

I think it's important to separate this discussion because I see two threads being entwined. One is a simple way to remove blocks from a profile and another is about privacy and the internet.

The latter (privacy and the internet) is somewhat misleading in the context of a forum profile because by nature, everything you post on a public forum is, well, public (of course there are private forums, but you get the idea; you're not making private posts to yourself or a select few by your own choosing). Other forum systems mentioned in this discussion have "Profile Privacy" features but it's misleading because the data you're making "private" is easily accessible by the search engine or on the post itself.

It's very easy to get a bit hysterical with the word "privacy" with the internet as context because it's a very sensitive and important subject. I don't want to be seen as not caring about true privacy because that's not the case but we don't want to mislead the end user into thinking they are making areas private when all they are doing is simply removing content discovery on their profile page.

[Makoto]

It's very easy to get a bit hysterical with the word "privacy" with the internet as context because it's a very sensitive and important subject. I don't want to be seen as not caring about true privacy because that's not the case but we don't want to mislead the end user into thinking they are making areas private when all they are doing is simply removing content discovery on their profile page.

Yeah, I do see where you're coming from, and I agree with you completely.

[BomAleold]

there are also ignore feature... if anyone of members "stalk" you or report it on admin or you must be as matt tell removing sensitive information or in case of problem to request a delete you from forum.
don't occur give permission only friends or other... social is free!

[Soniceffect]

I think it's important to separate this discussion because I see two threads being entwined. One is a simple way to remove blocks from a profile and another is about privacy and the internet.

The latter (privacy and the internet) is somewhat misleading in the context of a forum profile because by nature, everything you post on a public forum is, well, public (of course there are private forums, but you get the idea; you're not making private posts to yourself or a select few by your own choosing). Other forum systems mentioned in this discussion have "Profile Privacy" features but it's misleading because the data you're making "private" is easily accessible by the search engine or on the post itself.

It's very easy to get a bit hysterical with the word "privacy" with the internet as context because it's a very sensitive and important subject. I don't want to be seen as not caring about true privacy because that's not the case but we don't want to mislead the end user into thinking they are making areas private when all they are doing is simply removing content discovery on their profile page.

I see what you mean about things being publically accessable via search engines, however thats only because of the privacy thing in the first place. I think the main things here are the contact details. I would like to be able to add onto my profile my skype details, aol, and even my telephone number and have these governed by permissions on the system. So anyone I add as a friend can see them, otherwise they are not visible to anyone (including search engines).

[BomAleold]

I see what you mean about things being publically accessable via search engines, however thats only because of the privacy thing in the first place. I think the main things here are the contact details. I would like to be able to add onto my profile my skype details, aol, and even my telephone number and have these governed by permissions on the system. So anyone I add as a friend can see them, otherwise they are not visible to anyone (including search engines).

this is a method to prevent little spam, but not total security. for ip.nexus or similar app they could be useful... in this case the feature is not for privacy but for setting of members (customers, or for groups of members)

friends are ensure/obsolete setting for my community...
nowday thanks to facebook twitter... there are "friend" and very friend lol

[Jim McClain]

If this is a discussion on profile customisation, then that's one thing. But wrapping this discussion up with a "privacy" angle is misleading because all the information you make "private" on your profile is plainly visible elsewhere (search engine, topics themselves, post bit, etc). With the exception of a few things like the post count and join date, the rest of the information you supply to your profile is voluntary. You already have complete control what to share with other forum members by excluding the data in the first place.

I am a little surprised at your take on this discussion and some of the negative remarks. Am I wrong in assuming that if you know how to make an email address field private, you prob'ly know how to make other fields private? If I remember right, this forum software allows me to decide whether my email is available to all or none (maybe it's another software, but it's done).

What I see being discussed in this "Profile Privacy in IPB4" is privacy options. Apparently it has been discussed before, maybe more than once. It's an important issue to me and others.

I've been told that what appears in that profile flyout when you hover over a member name is configurable. I don't know how you can say that all information in the profile is available elsewhere. We all know this can be changed. It is possible to block search spiders from certain areas and not block them from others. You can do that for certain member groups too. I am confident that if it is written in the code that I can block spiders from one group and allow them access to another group, then I should be able to block spiders from crawling useless, non-niche specific profiles and allow them to crawl keyword rich content in niche-specific profiles, as long as I put each in their own user group.

Likewise, if simple permissions options were coded into some profile fields, then a member might be able to share their albums with friends or a specific user group and not others. If that is possible, how could search spiders gain access and index that content when they are being blocked? How is that content freely available to anyone who searches the forum for it?

Most of the participants in this discussion that are interested in levels of profile privacy aren't really talking about moving blocks or customizing the profile. I agree that belongs in another topic and maybe should have been moved or asked to bring those issues up in a different topic. The rest of us are asking, hoping about some changes in the profile part of IPS4. I would like the ability, as an admin, to decide what user groups can see the profiles of certain other user groups. I would also like to offer some privacy options to my members, so, for instance, if they want to share albums or certain about-me info with one group or friends, they can and bar anyone else from seeing that info.

Maybe we are not speaking with the right person in the development chain of command. Maybe you have a much different idea of what a profile is all about and we should be talking to someone who understands some of our hopes for this overlooked feature of a community package. Or maybe it's just that you are letting those few off-topic issues prevent you from seeing this topic really is about privacy options in IPS4 and their importance to the future of community development. Member profiles don't have to be what they have always been. They can be something great. I think IPS has the most potential and the best people to make it happen.

Jim

[Matt]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here.

I am a little surprised at your take on this discussion and some of the negative remarks.

Specifically, what did you find negative in my recent posts? I thought I was trying to focus and define the conversation not make "negative remarks".

Am I wrong in assuming that if you know how to make an email address field private, you prob'ly know how to make other fields private? If I remember right, this forum software allows me to decide whether my email is available to all or none (maybe it's another software, but it's done).

This is incorrect. Your email address can be part of your authentication with the software so you as a user have no ability to make it public. As mentioned elsewhere, we do take internet privacy seriously.

It is possible to block search spiders from certain areas and not block them from others. You can do that for certain member groups too.

By search engine, I mean the forum search engine. Not external engines such as Google. You can search a member's posts by adding their name as the author when searching.

Maybe we are not speaking with the right person in the development chain of command.

You're speaking with the co-founder of the company.

I think many are confused as to what the software does currently and are getting a little focused on "privacy" without fully understanding the nature of ones interaction with a public forum.

However, we are not saying that we don't care / refuse to do it / are not listening. We're just saying that for 4.0 this functionality is not going to be included.

Perhaps we can make this a constructive discussion and actually list what exactly is wanted and why. Give me a list of things you'd like to make private to a selected audience that can not be discovered via other pages within the software.

[Makoto]

Perhaps we can make this a constructive discussion and actually list what exactly is wanted and why. Give me a list of things you'd like to make private to a selected audience that can not be discovered via other pages within the software.

• Contact information
• Custom profile fields
• Status updates
• Private messaging (Restricted to friends only)
• Avatar/profile photo (Members/friends only(?))
• Signature (Members only(?))

Just off the top of my head. I'm not really sure about the last two, this is again all random ideas off the top of my head, but it might be nice to have those options for members that don't want their profile photos indexed by search engines. Reverse image searching is possible in Google now, and it is surprisingly powerful and effective.

Restricting the visibility of signatures to members only might be useful for members that, for example, include their e-mail or other semi-sensitive information in their signature, largely to prevent this information from being picked up by spam bots and the sort.

Really, I'm not sure how I feel about some of these suggestions. I'm just partaking in the discussion, I'm not strongly advocating any of this. (Minus restricting private messaging still, that I still would quite like to see.)

[TwistedMerlin]

I think restricting the avatar would be a little, you could wind up with hundreds of people either with the section completely blanked out or showing the stock avatar, depending on how it's implemented.
Personally I think that's just going to look a little silly.
Custom fields and contact info would be as far as I would go.

Just my 2 pence.

[Dylan Riggs]

• Contact information
• Custom profile fields
• Status updates
• Private messaging (Restricted to friends only)
• Avatar/profile photo (Members/friends only(?))
• Signature (Members only(?))

This is a good start - We should be able to have options to atleast better granually control some of these listed.

Exampe: Bob (Not a friend) see's A B and C on your profile - Tom (a friend) see's A, B, C, D and E. Tom had to send a friends request to Jimmy (the profile being viewed) and Jimmy had to manually approve Tom. This could be better controlled vai member options. What can Guests see on your profile, what can Member see on your profile, what can friends see on your profile.

I'm not too worried about what type of content is on the forums and that can simply be controlled by the forum settings that are already provided. I just think the profile pages can be of some improvements to make it more 'social' like coupled with some privacy settings that can restrict/allow some of your information in a way that you get to control. The friend system, I'm sorry - is nearly useless as I've already mentioned before. It's nothing more then someone clicking add as friend and having their avatar thumnail with a link to said profile. Their just isn't any real control over this system and I feel that it should ATLEAST get some control options, that's all.

[wingman23]

seems a simple matter of what its like for guest trying to view profiles. they get a "sorry but non members cant view profiles ".. Just take it a step further and make it so a member who tries to view someones profile, get the message.

"sorry you are not a friend of this user who requests only friends can view their profile..." Request to be their friend " also helps interactions too between members

I*ve had this before on some community or forum script i was using, cant for the life of me remember which it was though,

For me it doesn't have to be anything too restrictive, like blocking you from seeing posts of non friends or their avatars or signatures, after all these are on the whole public forums, i have private forums set up for more sensitive stuff which guests and members under a certain post count dont even know are there..

No, this is about the viewing of profile pages on the whole. members can if they want put all sorts of information on there. skpe, msn and so on. which is all built in to profiles already and we have a choice if its a private field (only admins can see it) or not.. but guess what, nobody is ever going to provide such details when they cant pick and choose who sees their information. some people dont even like putting their location in open view...

I know this is pushing it a bit but ideally there should be Private 1 and private 2 settings...

Private 1 would allow members to befriend someone and be able to choose what info is in private 1 settings... (maybe a website url, age ,location) something along those lines

private 2 (and this happens a lot on my board) members know each other for a while and get to feel trust, private 2 should have information shown such as skype, email and the like, Members should be allowed to put private one friends into private 2 friendship when they think its appropriate..

yeah i know,,,,, Dream on.. :drool:

[ZakRhyno]

• Contact information
• Custom profile fields
• Status updates
• Private messaging (Restricted to friends only)
• Avatar/profile photo (Members/friends only(?))
• Signature (Members only(?))

I saw I like to see an improvement in "friendship/watch" list. Person A request to be friends/watch Person B. Person A can approval or denied the watch and not just watch automatically like it is currently.

[MadMaddox]

However, we are not saying that we don't care / refuse to do it / are not listening. We're just saying that for 4.0 this functionality is not going to be included.

Perhaps we can make this a constructive discussion and actually list what exactly is wanted and why. Give me a list of things you'd like to make private to a selected audience that can not be discovered via other pages within the software.

Just farm it out to one of the myriad talented 3rd party scripters hovering around here.

They could have you an 'official IPB privacy hook' knocked out in a day that would do you proud.

[Rimi]

Just farm it out to one of the myriad talented 3rd party scripters hovering around here.

They could have you an 'official IPB privacy hook' knocked out in a day that would do you proud.

But I already did that. ;~;

[MadMaddox]

But I already did that. ;~;

"4.0"

and it was meant to point out that if a single 3rd party scripter could do it in a day, then where is the real issue. ultimately its about keeping your CUSTOMERS happy. Not your employees. And if your customers want it...and you dont have the man power.. then loosen the purse strings.. spend the equivalent of a license..and have one of established 3rd party modders do it for you..again..for 4.0.

Its pure rhetoric, however.

ive followed this thread long enough to spot the mule. :smile:

[Makoto]

It's not just a matter of implementing a feature customers want, it's taking the time to figure out how to implement it right, and not just cram something in at the last moment.

I think the merit of Profile Privacy features is still questionable in its current form, for a lot of the reasons Matt implied. I think a lot of people here want more privacy features, but don't really know specifically it is they really do want to see. I believe a lot of people here agree on adding privacy control for contact information, even gender and age, but that's about it.

I think there's still more that needs to be considered and looked at here.

[Jim McClain]

Specifically, what did you find negative in my recent posts? I thought I was trying to focus and define the conversation not make "negative remarks".

If you want this to be constructive, then I won't bother to point out how you have seemed negative and resistant to the ideas presented here. But I wouldn't have posted that if I hadn't felt it.

This is incorrect. Your email address can be part of your authentication with the software so you as a user have no ability to make it public. As mentioned elsewhere, we do take internet privacy seriously.

You ignored the premise of my statement. It can and is being done, just maybe not by this product. But you do offer other profile options available to the member and I assume to the administrator as well. So, my point is, if you can do it with some, you might consider doing it with more.

By search engine, I mean the forum search engine. Not external engines such as Google. You can search a member's posts by adding their name as the author when searching.

That wasn't clearly pointed out. But forum posts/topics is what I consider not part of this discussion. Yes, I see that it is a feature available in the profile, but I don't see that as anything more than a convenience. I don't see a need to privatize forum posts or topics except those that are in forums and other areas kept private according to the member group. You shouldn't be able to search and read in the results any posts made by staff in a staff forum, or by contributors in their private forum, but you should be able to find their posts in open forums.

Will that same forum search engine find information that might only be in a member's about page or album? Is there a sitemap sent out to the major Internet search engines that lets them know about new profile pages?

You're speaking with the co-founder of the company.

All the more worrisome to me. I am the founder of my company too. It hurts sometimes, by my members and my staff tell me what I could do better, what I do wrong and occasionally what I do right. It's important for me to listen and sometimes do things I didn't think were all that important. I find out later they were. Maybe this will be the case for you. Or not.

I think many are confused as to what the software does currently and are getting a little focused on "privacy" without fully understanding the nature of ones interaction with a public forum.

However, we are not saying that we don't care / refuse to do it / are not listening. We're just saying that for 4.0 this functionality is not going to be included.

And sometimes you or other staff (and other member participants) forget that some of us have no clue what the software does because we don't use it yet. I am looking forward to that day and I am not one that is rushing you. It's unfortunate that more privacy options will not be available in 4 than are currently available in 3 though. I hoped that the importance of profiles to a community and its growth over the last several years would have prompted you to add a few profile privacy related items to the to-do list. Maybe our hashing these things out here will make you think more about it when it's time to plan for 4.1. And I am very grateful that some of the plugin/addon contributors are seeing the need.

Perhaps we can make this a constructive discussion and actually list what exactly is wanted and why. Give me a list of things you'd like to make private to a selected audience that can not be discovered via other pages within the software.

I'd like to see 2 different sets of privacy controls; one in admin and the other in member settings. Without any understanding of what is already available in admin, this is a bit of what I'd like to see:

• Select available contact methods based on member groups
• Visibility of contact info to selected member groups
• Select member group permissions to comment on profiles
• Select permissions to access profiles based on member group (keep visitors/search engines out of some, allow in others)
• Select member group permissions to access gallery (their own or others)
• Select member group permissions to access files(their own or others)
• Select member group permissions to access blogs(their own or others)
• Select member group permissions to customize profiles
• Select member group permissions to have signatures and restrict various options
• Visibility of "About Me" section to select member groups and visitors (unregistered)
• Restrict visibility of gallery, files and blogs to selected member groups
• All permissions and privacy options would be honored in the flyout when hovering over a member name anywhere on site

Members should also have privacy controls available to them. Some of these might include the following.

• Limit access to entire profile to friends only, staff only, member group only or combinations
• Limit access to contact info to friends only, staff only, member group only or combinations
• Allow profile, gallery, files and blog comments from selected options (as above)
• Allow access to feed from selected options
• All permissions and privacy options would be honored in the flyout when hovering over a member name anywhere on site

Others may want even more extensive options, but these are most of what I would like to have. I DO understand the nature of interaction on a public forum. I have been a member of hundreds of different types of forums since 1992. I got my first staff position in late 1993 and by the end of '94, I was staff on half a dozen various Compuserve boards (Time Warner, WUGNET, Quarterdeck, Playboy, McAfee and Cerious). After AOL ruined Compuserve, I worked on a variety of forums on the real Internet (it looked so different through Netscape then) and I concentrated on interior design, flooring and remodeling DIY forums. I've worked in administrative duties for 12 years, most of that in commercial oriented businesses for my industry, computer gear, hunting and adult entertainment. Each have their own needs and some require various levels and varieties of privacy options. No forum software to date has satisfied all of those needs. Partly because the developers do not fully understand or appreciate the power of the profile section. IPS has the ability. Many of us are hoping they will utilize it before some other community developer does.

Thanks,

Jim

[bfarber]

I saw I like to see an improvement in "friendship/watch" list. Person A request to be friends/watch Person B. Person A can approval or denied the watch and not just watch automatically like it is currently.

I have seen this pointed out to you in other threads already and you seem to have missed it: you can already do this.

http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?app=core&module=usercp

Under Friends check "Allow me to approve members before they're added as a friend"

[opentype]

This is incorrect. Your email address can be part of your authentication with the software so you as a user have no ability to make it public. As mentioned elsewhere, we do take internet privacy seriously.

Speaking of emails and privacy: Here in Germany, having the chance to delete all personal information from a web service is a personal right regulated by the law. Sites which don't offer an option to delete an account are considered suspicious. So, such an option should really be in the core of the software in regards to the European market. Privacy doesn't just mean certain settings, but also having control over your data.

In addition, users can also ask for a full report of all the data saved from them. Not just email address and IP, but basically all database relations saved for that user. Luckily, none of my members has ever requested that. I wouldn’t know how to extract that from the database. Just FYI … ;-)

[ZakRhyno]

"4.0"

and it was meant to point out that if a single 3rd party scripter could do it in a day, then where is the real issue. ultimately its about keeping your CUSTOMERS happy. Not your employees. And if your customers want it...and you dont have the man power.. then loosen the purse strings.. spend the equivalent of a license..and have one of established 3rd party modders do it for you..again..for 4.0.

Its pure rhetoric, however.

ive followed this thread long enough to spot the mule. :smile:

I think something like this should be more of a core choice than 3rd party.

[ZakRhyno]

I have seen this pointed out to you in other threads already and you seem to have missed it: you can already do this.

http://community.invisionpower.com/index.php?app=core&module=usercp

Under Friends check "Allow me to approve members before they're added as a friend"

Thanks Bfarber, but I didn't see it another thread.

[ZakRhyno]

Speaking of emails and privacy: Here in Germany, having the chance to delete all personal information from a web service is a personal right regulated by the law. Sites which don't offer an option to delete an account are considered suspicious. So, such an option should really be in the core of the software in regards to the European market. Privacy doesn't just mean certain settings, but also having control over your data.

In addition, users can also ask for a full report of all the data saved from them. Not just email address and IP, but basically all database relations saved for that user. Luckily, none of my members has ever requested that. I wouldn’t know how to extract that from the database. Just FYI … ;-)

Nuke all person stuff say other than posts and comments, button eh?

[GreenLinks]

It is extremely sad to see IPB management's distance with privacy.

I think it's important to separate this discussion because I see two threads being entwined. One is a simple way to remove blocks from a profile and another is about privacy and the internet.

The latter (privacy and the internet) is somewhat misleading in the context of a forum profile because by nature, everything you post on a public forum is, well, public (of course there are private forums, but you get the idea; you're not making private posts to yourself or a select few by your own choosing). Other forum systems mentioned in this discussion have "Profile Privacy" features but it's misleading because the data you're making "private" is easily accessible by the search engine or on the post itself.

It's very easy to get a bit hysterical with the word "privacy" with the internet as context because it's a very sensitive and important subject. I don't want to be seen as not caring about true privacy because that's not the case but we don't want to mislead the end user into thinking they are making areas private when all they are doing is simply removing content discovery on their profile page.

Actually it is best not to separate anything at all because privacy is not something that needs to separated.

The ignorance from IPB team is directly related to my way or the highway method.

You are selling a script Matt , not generating a script for your own usage. So making things flexible is a requirement.

Now lets get back to the point where your team misses.

Everything you post to internet is also Public Matt so i wonder if your credit cart information , home address , social security number etc.. are live published to everyone or are you keeping that safe ? The answer to all your questions actually lays here Matt.

You are looking at thinking this completely wrong and as you can see with just one simple question all your logic is collapsed.

Piracy is getting more and more important each other day and it will only become more important.

But yet again this thread pointed out a very clear truth :

IPB team have no idea what privacy means...

[Makoto]

The ignorance from IPB team is directly related to my way or the highway method.

That is absolute nonsense. Matt has been more than reasonable in his response to this thread.

However, we are not saying that we don't care / refuse to do it / are not listening. We're just saying that for 4.0 this functionality is not going to be included.

Perhaps we can make this a constructive discussion and actually list what exactly is wanted and why. Give me a list of things you'd like to make private to a selected audience that can not be discovered via other pages within the software.

How is this "my way or the highway?" This is the co-founder of Invision Power Services stating that, though this feature is not going to be included in 4.0, he is open to listening to and considering feedback for implementing this into a future version of IP.Board.

"My way or the highway" is "we don't think this is a useful feature, so we're not going to implement it. If you don't like it, you can always go back to using vBulletin or Xenforo." The majority of your statements here are really completely baseless.

Now lets get back to the point where your team misses.

Everything you post to internet is also Public Matt so i wonder if your credit cart information , home address , social security number etc.. are live published to everyone or are you keeping that safe ? The answer to all your questions actually lays here Matt.

I have no idea where you are pulling your train of logic from. If you post your credit card information or SSN publicly anywhere on the internet, you are an absolute idiot. This is information you never post publicly, anywhere. So how is this statement even remotely relevant to the topic at hand here, which is adding profile privacy options to your IP.Board forum profile?

Assuming you're an insane, likely non-PCI compliant website administrator who has a SSN profile field for members to fill in on your forum, you can already choose to have custom profile fields only visible to administrators. This is obviously not a field that you'd want visible to "friends only," this is a field that should never be publicly viewable to anyone. So again, what is your point here? I really don't understand what you're trying to say or prove.

You are looking at thinking this completely wrong and as you can see with just one simple question all your logic is collapsed.

I think your logic is collapsed. I'm honestly getting the impression that you may be drunk from this post.

IPB team have no idea what privacy means...

Why? Because you can't set profile fields to be visible to "friends only"? Even though in IP.Gallery, albums can be set as visible to Friends Only? Even though in IP.Blog, you can go even further and have blogs visible to only to a custom defined group of people as well as friends only?

That's nonsense. You're doing nothing but derailing this topic from a potentially constructive feedback thread into another "hey guys, let's all bash IPS for no real reason whatsoever!" topic. This really needs to stop.