![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 78. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 17:54:39
how about making the boards only viewable to members?
posts etc could still be linked to google...
when you follow a link to a board / post then you login to view the board / post.
or...
you can follow a link to the registration stuff... and to the faq... and you can sit the multi-guess quiz and join up if you want to view the board / post.
?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 18:37:30
In reply to idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 17:54:39
ya just gotta admire persistence / effort.
(maybe)
sigh.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 18:47:22
In reply to Re: idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 18:37:30
can you imagine taking me on car trips?
are we there yet?
are we there yet?
NOW are we there?
are we there NOW?
Posted by Phillipa on December 31, 2005, at 20:36:19
In reply to Re: idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 18:47:22
Alex are you bored? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2006, at 6:49:24
In reply to Re: idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 18:47:22
> can you imagine taking me on car trips?
>
> are we there yet?
> are we there yet?
> NOW are we there?
> are we there NOW?LOL.
But you know, it's not a bad idea.
gg
Posted by pseudoname on January 1, 2006, at 11:50:44
In reply to idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 17:54:39
> how about making the boards only viewable to members?
Alex,
Lots of Yahoo groups and other boards are private. I don't know of any as general as Babble, but there *are* members-only support boards.
Have you tried any? If not, maybe you could and see if you like that arrangement? I'm *NOT* suggesting you leave (110% NOT!), but just see about that format & its problems....
Posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2006, at 16:56:10
In reply to Re: idea » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2006, at 6:49:24
Sounds complicated to me. Unless you're highly proficient on a computer. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:20:39
In reply to Re: idea » gardenergirl, posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2006, at 16:56:10
no i'm not bored...
it was just an example of persistence
(or possibly pointlessness...)i don't think it would be that complicated.
currently...
some people have their posting name and password saved by their computer so they don't need to key that in before posting.
i usually login to the site (type in my posting name and password) when i arrive... but that is only of use if I've remembered to logout when i leave... that helps me get the new indicators when i switch between computers.
so... it could be like that. you login to view a board... and once you are logged in you can stay logged in...
in fact... if you could stay logged in until you logged yourself out then you could continue to access as you do currently with your computer saving your posting name and password.
but for people who aren't members...
they would get diverted to the joining up page; the quiz; and the faq.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:22:01
In reply to Re: idea » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on January 1, 2006, at 6:49:24
> But you know, it's not a bad idea.
i thought it was a very good idea ;-)
i'm glad i have internet access too :-)
christmas present from department methinks
:-)
:-)
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:25:30
In reply to have you tried private bds? » alexandra_k, posted by pseudoname on January 1, 2006, at 11:50:44
> Lots of Yahoo groups and other boards are private. I don't know of any as general as Babble, but there *are* members-only support boards.
yup. there are some out there.
> Have you tried any?
yes. though... i think comperable would be clinician moderated consumer support boards.
> If not, maybe you could and see if you like that arrangement? I'm *NOT* suggesting you leave (110% NOT!), but just see about that format & its problems....
only 'problem' i found was small number of posters. not necessarily 'problematic' though...
and there was another variable affecting that...
i don't think that would be an issue here.
and... by continuing to link to google... the site would still get plenty of hits... and maybe... more people registering than solely lurking.
i think it would help reduce the risk of people irl tracking people on the net.
considerably...
Posted by Phillipa on January 1, 2006, at 18:54:39
In reply to Re: have you tried private bds? » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:25:30
Alex I think I get what you mean in order to even read a post you would have to login? That would be good. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 1, 2006, at 20:35:15
In reply to idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 17:54:39
> how about making the boards only viewable to members?
>
> posts etc could still be linked to google...But wouldn't only being viewable to members mean not being viewable to Google?
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 20:41:47
In reply to Re: idea, posted by Dr. Bob on January 1, 2006, at 20:35:15
> But wouldn't only being viewable to members mean not being viewable to Google?
well... you can't read the whole post from google. you have to follow the link to the babble site.
so... why couldn't they still be linked to google... but when you follow the link to the babble site then you have to decide just how much you really want to read the post...
and by signing up...
you get to learn about the boards. enough to pass the multi-guess quiz... and you get a link to the faq...
i think... that would be a way of staying public enough to recruit new members / be findable for people looking for this kind of thing...
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 20:51:49
In reply to Re: idea » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 20:41:47
sorry i'm not quite sure what you mean...
the folk from google need to be able to view the posts in order to trawl them to make them into hits on google?
i don't know anything about all that stuff...
does a person do that or a comp. program?
could we sign them up or could we grant them honourary membership or something?
personally... i'd prefer posts not to be linked to google. but... that is because i have already found this site. but i found it... through google. i did.
and thus if all the links out there for the posts / boards currently... if they either took you to the posts / boards (if a member) or to the join up pages / faq's (if not a member) well... publicity would be just the same as it is presently.
except... that requiring people to join up might go some way towards dissuading people who are 'just being nosey' (not to say some of them don't end up participating...) but it is to reduce the liklihood of peoples friends / family members / employers etc tracking ones posts online.
not failsafe. not at all... but a mild deterrant...
i think it would deter...
Posted by pseudoname on January 1, 2006, at 20:57:37
In reply to Re: idea » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 20:41:47
> > But wouldn't only being viewable to members mean not being viewable to Google?
> well... you can't read the whole post from google. you have to follow the link to the babble site
I think I see what you mean. Like Google Scholar does with journals? You search for words, and it returns a list of links and shows the snippets of phrases with those words as usual, but to read the whole page the phrases are from, you have to join that journal's site and log in.
Dr Bob would provide Google with a password or some other access to the Babble pages so Google could include them in its index, but it wouldn't cache them. And anyone clicking on the link in Google would have to join Psycho-Babble to read any further.
Is that the idea? Google *does* do that for quite a lot of sites.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:11:39
In reply to Googleability, posted by pseudoname on January 1, 2006, at 20:57:37
> I think I see what you mean.
yup :-)
Like Google Scholar does with journals? You search for words, and it returns a list of links and shows the snippets of phrases with those words as usual, but to read the whole page the phrases are from, you have to join that journal's site and log in.
yup that sounds like what i meant :-)
> Dr Bob would provide Google with a password or some other access to the Babble pages so Google could include them in its index, but it wouldn't cache them. And anyone clicking on the link in Google would have to join Psycho-Babble to read any further.:-)
> Is that the idea? Google *does* do that for quite a lot of sites.goodo :-)
Posted by pseudoname on January 1, 2006, at 21:31:13
In reply to Re: Googleability » pseudoname, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:11:39
> > Is that the idea?
> yup :-)I'm glad I get it.
It would provide a hurdle against people in your workplace / residence / etc reading your posts after seeing "http:babble" in your browser history, though only if they were afraid of getting caught snooping. If they felt they were entitled to know what you were doing at "http:babble", they'd register and follow you.
Most office snoops, I think, would be deterred.
But by having it open to Google for indexing, you'd still be searchable (i.e., FINDABLE) if you make any reference to your real name / location / school or unusual personal characteristics.
Thus the membership barrier could lead to a false sense of security and more regretted posts.
Posted by JenStar on January 2, 2006, at 0:06:42
In reply to idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 17:54:39
I like it!
JenStar
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 2, 2006, at 4:10:30
In reply to Re: idea » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on January 2, 2006, at 0:06:42
It would also deter an awful lot of people finding the support here they need.
I don't sign up for sites without first seeing what they have to offer me.. Without being able to see the posts, then I wouldn't be able to see whether it ws decent info contained in them.
But then, I don't have a problem with posts being google-able. Most people here are signed up with a nick-name (ie, not their "real" name).. If someone is determined enough to work out who you are, they're determined enough to sign up first.
I think the safest thing, for those worried about "office snoops", is to clear your cache cookies ad history after each use.
Nikki
Posted by pseudoname on January 2, 2006, at 15:35:50
In reply to IMHO, posted by NikkiT2 on January 2, 2006, at 4:10:30
In My so-humble-I-lie-on-the-ground-throwing-dirt-on-my-head Opinion ;-D
> [Members-only reading] would also deter an awful lot of people finding the support here they need.
Agreed.
> I don't have a problem with posts being google-able.
Me either. In fact, I do things to make my posts MORE googleable. Like: If it's about a drug, I put the name in the subject line. I put links to some of my old posts in my new posts with certain keywords in the same paragraph.
I'm opposed to members-only reading. Idle public browsing of Babble benefits me and the Babblers who are already here. Plus, part of why I participate at Babble is to help OTHER people, not just me-me-me. That's a lot less possible if my posts are behind a wall.
> I think the safest thing, for those worried about "office snoops", is to clear your cache cookies and history
In a lot of systems (including Alex's workplace), users can't do that, unfortunately.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 2, 2006, at 16:24:43
In reply to Re: IMshilotgtdomhO » NikkiT2, posted by pseudoname on January 2, 2006, at 15:35:50
>> I think the safest thing, for those worried about "office snoops", is to clear your cache cookies and history
>In a lot of systems (including Alex's workplace), users can't do that, unfortunately.
Then I think the answer is obvious.. There are a number of websites I choose not to visit from work as I don't want them to know about them.
My new job blocks PB though, so I don't need to make a decision about that!Nikki x
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:33:10
In reply to IMHO, posted by NikkiT2 on January 2, 2006, at 4:10:30
> membership barrier could lead to a false sense of security and more regretted posts.
It could... But of course anyone is free to sign up... I would imagine... Things would just continue on as per usual. I mean... Would you be tempted to post more identifying info than usual if you knew people had to sign up before reading?
> I don't sign up for sites without first seeing what they have to offer me..
Maybe because you found a good site already?
>If someone is determined enough to work out who you are, they're determined enough to sign up first.Well... Someone might know you frequent the site but they might not be so very interested as to sign up. And if they did sign up then at least they would know something about the purpose of the site etc. And if they got that far... They would still have to find the person. And... That sounds like a lot of bother to me...
> There are a number of websites I choose not to visit from work as I don't want them to know about them.
If alternative internet access was available then I would do the same.
>I think the answer is obvious..
It may well be :-(
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:34:18
In reply to Re:, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:33:10
But of course... It was about (relative) privacy / security in general.
Not just about me...
But maybe it is just about me.
Maybe nobody else is worried...
Or maybe those people don't think this would help.
Posted by LegWarmers on January 3, 2006, at 9:07:56
In reply to idea, posted by alexandra_k on December 31, 2005, at 17:54:39
> how about making the boards only viewable to members?
>
> posts etc could still be linked to google...
>
> when you follow a link to a board / post then you login to view the board / post.
>
> or...
>
> you can follow a link to the registration stuff... and to the faq... and you can sit the multi-guess quiz and join up if you want to view the board / post.
>
> ?hmm what an interesting idea, I like it. I think that would be a really good solution to this problem. Maybe the original med board could be left as completely googlable, but the more social boards need registration to get in once you search. I believe the med board is the board that recieves the most hits anyway, meds could be the initiation into babble as it seems to be for most anyway.
Posted by LegWarmers on January 3, 2006, at 9:10:07
In reply to Re:, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:34:18
> But of course... It was about (relative) privacy / security in general.
>
> Not just about me...
>
> But maybe it is just about me.
>
> Maybe nobody else is worried...
> Or maybe those people don't think this would help.no, I think there are others who are worried, they probably havent made it over to admin yet. IMO this may be a topic to discuss on the other boards as well so that others are aware of it. Or even to post a link to this thread over there.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.