|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Apr 17, 2009 15:03:52 GMT -5
There are many posts about various areas, subjects, and topics, . The areas, subjects, and topics in which this forum is divided are very good, and I am not suggesting any changes to the organization or format.
But there are a few various TYPES of content posted among the existing content areas, subjects and topics. As it stands, currently, anyone can view any type of content while clicking-through this site. Some content may not have been intended for open consumption by who-knows-whom, especially for unknown interests beyond the borders of our community.
So my suggestion for consideration is this...creation of an option for originators of new threads to restrict viewing of all content in that thread only to members who are logged-in ("Members Only" content). One theory that supports this suggestion is equity, meaning, the poster must be logged-in in order originate the string, so why should that poster not be able to expect readers to also log-in?
One immediate objection to my own suggestion is that this would seem to violate the "open to all" precept of the forum. I would counter that objection by pointing out that creating an account is an option open to all, and thus, so is logging-in.
I would also clarify this suggestion as follows: if the originator of the thread, the poster of the very first post in the string, does NOT opt to restrict viewing of the thread to members who are logged-in, then no subsequent posts in the string can be restricted to members-only viewing. Likewise, once a new thread is designated for members-only viewing, then all posts will be restricted to members only.
A - Is this possible to implement on this server?
B - Is this worth doing?
Chris Wendt
PS - This week, there have been days-on-end when no one except the moderator logged on, almost no posts were made, and yet dozens of unidentified "Guests" came clicking through and leaving, presumably disappointed. This caused me to wonder, is it even worth posting anything here any more at all? It also led directly to my suggestion. -CW
|
|
|
|
Post by wecandoit on Apr 18, 2009 8:20:37 GMT -5
Hi Chris,
I am both a member and a lurker.. some days i just don't sign in. I only sign in if i have something to say. I would be more than happy to go that extra step if thats what it takes to be up to date.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wantagh Parent on Apr 19, 2009 8:54:59 GMT -5
Thanks chris and wecandoit. As it stands, currently, anyone can view any type of content while clicking-through this site. Some content may not have been intended for open consumption by who-knows-whom, especially for unknown interests beyond the borders of our community. Two folders on this board have restricted access and are not viewable by guests under any circumstances. The Come Introduce Yourself may be viewed by signed in members only and Moderators Corner is for moderators ("Wantagh Parent") only. These folders, or anything in them, cannot be viewed publicly by guests. The rest of the board may be viewed by any guest. We debated a closed versus open forum when setting up this message board. At the end of the day, however, we decided the board would hold little interest to those outside of Wantagh borders and open is consistent with the intention of the board. So my suggestion for consideration is this...creation of an option for originators of new threads to restrict viewing of all content in that thread only to members who are logged-in ("Members Only" content). We can make certain folders members only but there is no option on proboards to make specific threads members only. We can do some housekeeping with a trial of a members only folder and see if there is interest. PS - This week, there have been days-on-end when no one except the moderator logged on, almost no posts were made, and yet dozens of unidentified "Guests" came clicking through and leaving, presumably disappointed. This caused me to wonder, is it even worth posting anything here any more at all? It also led directly to my suggestion. -CW It was a no news, school vacation week. Thanks to all who participate here, either by posting or lurking. |
|
|
|
Post by Wantagh Parent on Apr 19, 2009 9:35:55 GMT -5
Please note we made some housekeeping changes including a trial of a members only discussion board.
We appreciate the feedback.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Apr 19, 2009 16:50:35 GMT -5
Thanks for your response.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 12, 2009 11:34:54 GMT -5
Please note we made some housekeeping changes including a trial of a members only discussion board. We appreciate the feedback. Okay, well, I made a post recently in the "Members Only" area, but no one stopped by to read it or to respond to it. I am pretty sure the reason is that unless a person is logged-on, they cannot see the heading or poster's name for posts in the "Members Only" section. Perhaps someone will read this post and then log on to read that post. Perhaps not. Moderator: can the post headings in Memebers Only be displayed to readers who do not log on? The primary reason I persist with these ideas and concepts is the continuing 'readerhip' on this venue, and my wonderment that, while a lot of people click-through daily, very, very few bother to respond or identify themselves. I think this is a valuable, or potentially very valuable venue for exchanging ideas. Now, if we could only get the "exchanging" part working. Part of the problem is that so few people are "publicly" identified, and just a small few have openly identified who they are behind their userid's, but a much larger number of readers have shared their identities "privately" with others. So any time one of those folks logs on, it is not possible to keep that fact from the knowledge of other lurkers. Now, normally there should be nothing wrong with that, other people seeing you logging on to a community website or blog site. But if someone else issued an edict forbidding 'The Faithful' from logging-on and participating, here, well that would make it almost a sin...at least if you get caught! Anyhow...stay cool! Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by Wantagh Parent on Aug 18, 2009 8:25:25 GMT -5
Moderator: can the post headings in Memebers Only be displayed to readers who do not log on? No. That is unchangeable in the proboards software. The primary reason I persist with these ideas and concepts is the continuing 'readerhip' on this venue, and my wonderment that, while a lot of people click-through daily, very, very few bother to respond or identify themselves. I think this is a valuable, or potentially very valuable venue for exchanging ideas. Now, if we could only get the "exchanging" part working. While we believe the focus of this board would naturally gravitate to the school district, we have been mulling over the idea of expanding the amount of folders to include Library and Fire Department. We would be interested in your thoughts on this. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 18, 2009 11:47:55 GMT -5
"While we believe the focus of this board would naturally gravitate to the school district, we have been mulling over the idea of expanding the amount of folders to include Library and Fire Department. " Since the Wantagh Library is technically a subsidiary of the Wantagh School District, it is funded by the exact same taxpayers who fund the schools. So therefore it would be a natural extension of this venue to include a folder for the Library. While the Wantagh Fire Department is dear to all of us in Wantagh, the Fire Department covers a much larger geographic area than the school district. Only two of the Wantagh Fire Department's Fire Houses are actually within the Wantagh School District; two fire houses and the training facility are located physically within the Levittown School District, and one Fire House is located within the Seaford School District. More than half of the Fire Houses are outside the Wantagh School District. I would suggest you could start a folder for the Library right away, but hold off on starting a folder for the Fire Department until events may make that more appropriate. That's my two-cents worth... Regards Chris Wendt |
|
|
|
Post by Wantagh Parent on Aug 19, 2009 6:34:34 GMT -5
Thank you for your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeannelambert on Aug 17, 2010 13:33:25 GMT -5
I am new to this site and decided to join in support of blocking the cell towers in Wantagh.
A new issue has come to my attention that I wanted to alert other neighbors about. There has been a large amount of tree destruction in the area near the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway on the site of the Aqua water pump station on DeMott Avenue. I contacted Aqua but no one seems to know why this is happening. My #1 concern is the loss of the woods that help camouflage the highway and I am wondering if this are might be a future site for a cell tower. Does anyone have information about this? Before we know it, there won't be any trees left!
|
|
|
|
Post by Wantagh Parent on Aug 18, 2010 1:21:27 GMT -5
Welcome Jeanne.
Hopefully, someone has heard something and will respond.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Aug 20, 2010 9:12:36 GMT -5
May I suggest that the post about the tree removal situation at the Aqua Water Facility on DeMott Avenue be re-posted under the "OT Wantagh" section with its own relevant subject?
I think more people will read it there and possibly respond.
Regards
Chris Wendt
|
|
