# Ask About Money needs stricter control



## John (26 Jun 2004)

Is AAM neutral? In my opinion No it is not. It has become corrupted by a few both on the posting and on the moderating side of the fence.

Are consumer interests still being upheld? In my opinion NO. 

Does someone ask a question out of sheer boredom and then come back and answer it? Is there too much self advertising going on? Is there incorrect deletion of material? Inappropriate positioning of posts? 

I have discussed this point with a few colleagues and the consensus was that we didn't think all is as neutral as it appears on AMM and that its going downhill pretty quickly. We should draw attention to the fact. 

Here is what I think needs to be done now:

1. No more unregistered users.
2. Only registered users should be allowed to post and reply all through an editor, not necessarily individual moderators.
3. If a person wants to post then they have to register although by doing so they can choose remain anonymous. 
4. If individual moderators are the preferred methood of control then it should be clear, by name, and qualification, precisely who is moderating each forum. 
5. The editor (moderator) should have the necessary competence and comprehension of financial matters which will enable an unbiased view on the suitability of the posts and their subsequent replies.  

I really feel we must re examine the current direction least this valuable resource looses all credibility.


----------



## sluice44 (27 Jun 2004)

> No more unregistered users.


And you are?

Of course AAM is not neutral.  It is a community of people at different stages in their life and consequently, different views on what's important.  The good thing about AAM is the wide variety of opinions (and the debates).  A good example was the debate(s) on the need for private health insurance.  

Not many people would visit if the only opinion was Brendan's or whomever you would *pay* for expert professional advice.  If this happened, there would be no need for the forums and people could just read his guide.

Sluice


----------



## rainyday (27 Jun 2004)

It might help us to understand your feedback if you point to specific examples of the kinds of problem posts which concern you.


----------



## toot toot (27 Jun 2004)

*Accountability*

is the key. Registered users confirmed by unique email address on one side, and mods who note action taken and why - no big rigmarole just 'Deleted re: rule 6' or whatever. 

As for evidence of worthwhile posts being vanished. Em, well, they're gone.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Jun 2004)

Am I the only one who thinks it a bit odd that unregistered users are calling for all users to be registered?

And one who is complaining about the moderation is asking for _all_ posts to be screened? 

The basic Askaboutmoney has not changed. People are asking questions and they are being answered. What has happened is that  some users are abusing the Letting Off Steam forum by posting rubbish or offensive posts which are lowering the tone of AAM. The moderators are discussing how best to address this problem while maintaining the ethos of Askaboutmoney.

I have full confidence in the moderators. They are selected based on the quality of their contributions to Askaboutmoney. They do a great unpaid job. That doesn't mean that we all agree. I have a lower tolerance of rubbish than some of the others. I don't know how many times I have said it, but I will say it again - the moderators would prefer to be answering questions to reading and editing offensive posts and rubbish. None of us is going to waste any more time in discussing why we edit or delete such posts.

Stop carping. If you want to improve the Askaboutmoney experience have a look at the "Would you like to update our key posts?" forum. It's two weeks, since we invited people to help out and there has not been one contribution yet. 

Brendan


----------



## rainyday (27 Jun 2004)

Hi John 

As a general principle, we minimise the amount of moderation taking place. Less is more, as Jem sometimes reminds us. In general, the only posts edited/deleted are;

- offensive posts or language
- potentially defamatory posts about individuals/companies
- 'trolling' posts in the below-the-line debate forums, i.e. simple provocation with no value-added.

The financial/technical knowledge of the moderator is pretty much irrelevant. If an incorrect answer is posted, the best outcome is for another poster to post a correction in public, so there can be an open, transparent debate on the issue. To me, this is far preferable to behind-the-scenes moderation.

The idea of having all replies screened through an editor is hugely impractical, regardless of its rights and wrongs. Who has the time to screen hundreds of posts a day? The only Irish bulletin board that does this (afaik) is irishhealth.com, which is a commercial site with advertising income.

I'm not sure why you see the need for mods to be identifiable by name/qualification. If you are concerned about 'conflict of interest', you can rest assured that most of the mods know most of the other mods and Brendan knows ALL of the mods. So between ourselves, we ensure there is no conflict of interest amongst the mods.

Making registration mandatory for ALL forums would create a significant hurdle for the average first-time poster who has a specific question. The harder we make it for such people to post, the further we get away from our core mission. We frequently see individuals who make their first posts unregistered coming back and registering later, once they get hooked on AAM. Perhaps there is an arguement for making registration required on some of the below-the-line debate forums to stop the kind of childish trolling that happened in recent weeks?

Toot toot's suggestion about 'mods who note action taken and why - no big rigmarole just 'Deleted re: rule 6' or whatever' is sensible and is normal practice (look around and you'll find examples of my 'post containing obscenities deleted' by-line. However, the downside of this is the inevitable 'why was my post deleted' debates which sap time that could otherwise be spent on contributing to AAM.

I'm still not really sure what problem your suggestions are aimed at solving. Again, if you can give specific examples or more background, that will help us to understand your feedback.


----------



## Sean (27 Jun 2004)

*..*

Toot Toot said some accountability could be obtained by "registered users confirmed by unique email address on one side".

I don't see how this would give greater accountability anyhow; how long does it take to open a free e-mail account?


----------



## toot toot (27 Jun 2004)

*..*

Can't a thief say stealing is wrong? 

OK. Sorry. 

There is no problem, everything is fine. 

Please go back to your business.

PS. It's an excellent board anyway.


----------



## Marion (28 Jun 2004)

*Re: AAM*

Hi John

Your post is interesting. Why on earth do you think that somebody would ask a question out of boredom and come back and answer it? I don’t think that there is a serial poster out there spending their time on AAM. Do you not believe that AAM is a thriving community of people, both registered and unregistered? AAM is busier now than is was this time last year and so much busier than when I first started to post.

May I ask why you chose to post in this instance as an unregistered poster? It does seem a bit strange to suggest registration as a means of improving AAM and then to post as an unregistered user. Not that it matters of course. All posters are welcome. AAM's policy is to respect the privacy of others. [Guideline 16] As a matter of fact, there are some people on AAM who have chosen to identify themselves and their company and who give freely of their time and expertise to AAM. Why do you believe that this policy needs to be changed? 

AAM is primarily a discussion forum where people can ask questions concerning financial matters. They like to read what others in similar positions might do. They also know that there are many people who contribute to AAM with specific financial expertise who may, or may not, reply to their specific question. It is a model which is working extremely well.  They may decide to act on any advice given or not. What’s important, however, is that the service is being provided and people are given a wonderful opportunity to become well-informed on financial matters. Of course, we can all read newspapers, business magazines, trot down to the various institutions/brokers and become informed in this way, but the personal experience of others can often be more educational.

Why do you believe that consumer interests are not being upheld on AAM? Is easy access to an abundance of financial information in a friendly, stress-free environment not the key to being a better consumer? 

With regard to your concerns about Moderators, we come from diverse backgrounds – some from the financial area and some from the non-financial area. A Moderator’s job/role/function on AAM is not to provide financial information, but rather to facilitate the access of information to others in an open and professional environment.

I hope you will post again in response to the replies given.

Marion :hat


----------



## J (28 Jun 2004)

*AAM*

Thanks for your feedback. I'll post a reply as soon as I get a moment.

J


----------



## purple (28 Jun 2004)

*Re.AAM*

Hi all,
I haven't been reading or posting on AAM for very long but I think that the moderators do a very good job and I don't understand why there is such criticism of people who do a job for nothing! 
Any interests are, from what I can see, declared by the moderators and every effort is made to be balanced.
They must spend a considerable amount of time doing their jobs here so the amount of time spent answering questions about why they did this or that must be very irk-sum.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Jun 2004)

_John_ - it would be a good idea if you could provide examples of the type of misuse/abuse of _AAM_ that you mention in your original post above (i.e. alleged lack of neutrality, alleged lack of consumer interest/orientation, nuisance/bored posters etc.). I have an idea of the type of stuff that you're talking about but would be interested in hearing precisely the sort of content that you object to. Like any bulletin board/discussion forum _AAM_ is not perfect and depends primarily on its contributors for the quality of content. However, in general, the vast majority of contributors post their questions and views in good faith and without bias (or declare potential bias through disclaimers) and consequently the quality of the content and discussions on the site tends to be pretty high. The sporadic need for moderation (also not an exact science!) - again done in good faith and hopefully generally without bias on the part of the moderators - tends to weed out content that is not constructive for one reason or another. Thankfully this happens a lot less frequently than one might imagine. As a moderator myself I have always argued against mandatory registration because (a) many people don't want to or can't register (b) some of the best regular or sporadic contributions over the years have come from unregistered users and (c) to date any abuse/misuse of the board by nuisance posters hasn't really warranted instituting mandatory registration as a palliative measure. I have also disagreed with certain moderator decisions such as the introduction of forums such as _The Craic_ and some others that don't have a primarily [consumer] finance orientation but accepted these decisions when I was in the minority. Ideally I would prefer _AAM_ to maintain its primary focus on matters financial but as the popularity of some of the less finance orientated forums show there seems to be a demand for more wide ranging discussion here. Ultimately _AAM_ will continue to grow and adapt in line with the demands of its contributing community, as has happened over the years, and constructive feedback is always welcome.


----------



## John (29 Jun 2004)

Thank you. I don't to be drawn into specific examples or analyzing individual weaknesses as its not my objective.

As an overall strategy I can't see why AAM couldn't stand on its own and become a commercial success by leaving ezBoard.

Registering would be one of those steps. But its an unfamiliar process.

A first time user needs to know the competency of the person answering his/her question. Likewise they also need to know the level of expertise of those who moderate each forum. 

Registering and filtering through an editor achieves personal responsibility, not only in the quality and meaningfulness of the posts but also in the quality of the replies and bickering that we sometimes witness.

Many have left this board because their spirits were broken by what really amounted to petty orchestrating.

Be they doctors, aviation experts, solicitors, intermediaries, if their strength was recognised and welcomed and they would still be onboard. 

I believe people don't necessarily want a quick answer they want the right answer and I feel the site is becoming too fragmented. Let someone else's web site  specialise in gardening, let Egon Ronay recommend restaurants, let Michelin award the stars to a good bed for the night. Ask About Money's niche is asking about money. This is where it should excel.

I'm not surprised that people don't clamber for the job of moderator. Its appears to be a full 24 hour job.

It is of utmost importance to build on and improve the spirit of Ask About Money and if it means making subtle changes then why not. But please don't shoot one of the messengers.


----------



## Marion (29 Jun 2004)

Hi John

I don't think anybody is shooting the messenger, but your message is rather vague. You haven't attempted to provide answers to any of your previous allegations. 

I honestly don't think that the moderator's job is a 24/7 one.  There are times when there are contentious issues, but that's life. We deal with them and we get on with it. We are not immature adolescents bearing grudges, we just move on the next issue/topic. We also have lives outside of AAM. I'm sure it is a hobby for most of us. Nothing more, nothing less.

Who specifically has left the Board? I'm sure people do move on to different things. There is nothing in the posting guidelines which states that one is commited to AAM for life. There is no life-time contract.

I don't agree that a first-time user needs to know the competecy of the person who answers nor the competency of the moderator. People realise that they are on a discussion forum and it is quite clear from the posting guidelines that those who post have either experience or expertise. [Guideline 6] We are responsible adults who can deal with information and who can either decide to take on board the advice given or not. Often, there is no right answer to a query. People need to weigh up the information given and assess it in relation to their own position.

I'm somewhat disappointed that you didn't spill the beans and spell out exactly what it is you wanted to say initially. We are grown up here. We can take it and nobody is going to shoot the messenger. But, we reserve the right of reply.

Marion :hat


----------



## rainyday (29 Jun 2004)

Hi John - No-one is shooting you, but its not unreasonable to ask you to support your comments. I'm fascinated by your comment that 'many have left' - can you please advise what this is based on? Do you know the 'many' personally? Have they told you their reasons for leaving?

And of course, if you're not interested in restaurants or politics or DVD's, just don't read those threads/forums. No-one twists your arm or forces you to read them. I'm not clear on why you think that removal of these forums would improve the remainder of the boards - more detail please....


----------



## John (29 Jun 2004)

My goodness such aggression rainyday and thank you for the example. This is precisely the type of long term damage I was talking about. Perhaps you could link to some more for me? 

The above are my views and I don't feel I have to restate them.


----------



## rainyday (29 Jun 2004)

So 'precision questioning' = aggression then? Interesting...... This is just a diversion - No-one is asking you to restate your views. You are being asked to support them. 

Without support, we take the feedback as the views of one individual. With support, anything is possible...


----------



## car (29 Jun 2004)

*aggression*

John doesnt register yet calls for all to register.  He doesnt respond with examples of allegations after repeated calls for them, yet stands by them.  He accuses rainy of aggression (John,how long have you been on AAM??, if rainy wanted to be aggressive, youd know about it), when he/shes not being aggressive.  
Me is getting a whiff of trolling.  Tho very well done, mind you.

If John isnt, then I'll repeat what all the mods are saying.  If you dont like to read DAAM posts, then dont read them.


----------



## piggy (29 Jun 2004)

*Re: trolling*

I don't know if John is trolling, but I do agree that if he doesn't back up his points they're essentially just his vague opinion.

One thing I would love to see the back of is the trolling that's going on, especially in Letting off Steam and DAAM.
I spend a lot of my time in those forums and am saddened by the amount of good debates which turn into slagging matches or get turned on their head because trolls keep popping up making wild accusations and then disappearing. I admit I sometimes have a hot head in these matters, but the tai chi is helping!
Is there a solution to it besides ignoring them? I'd much rather see the back of this completely. There's a lot of current affairs issues which have become nearly impossible to debate!


----------



## ClubMan (29 Jun 2004)

* Thank you. I don't to be drawn into specific examples or analyzing individual weaknesses as its not my objective.*

No offence intended _John_ but complaining about certain content but then declining to provide specific examples seems to be a bit like the boy crying wolf and makes it difficult for others to properly consider your feedback.

*As an overall strategy I can't see why AAM couldn't stand on its own and become a commercial success by leaving ezBoard.

Registering would be one of those steps. But its an unfamiliar process.*

I suspect that you've misunderstood the fundamental point of _AAM_ - it is deliberately a non-commercial venture which is designed to be a voluntary and co-operative community facilitating the discussion of Irish (personal and other) financial matters (and more these days). It generates no revenue never mind profits and is kindly funded by _Brendan_, its original sole founder, out of his own pocket. I don't understand the point about _ezBoard_ since this is simply the bulletin board hosting platform that is used to host _AAM_ and has generally been more reliable than the previous incarnation hosted on an Irish ISP using the _UBB (Ultimate Bulletin Board)_ Perl/CGI based script system. In contrast to the old system (ISP hosting was unreliable and _UBB_ was slow/inefficient) _ezBoard_ is more reliable and provides for relatively straightforward administration. _ezBoard_ is simply a hosting service provider to _AAM_ and otherwise has no interest or say in the running of the site. Registration is an option on _ezBoard_ and at the moment the consensus is to leave it optional for use of _AAM_.

*A first time user needs to know the competency of the person answering his/her question. Likewise they also need to know the level of expertise of those who moderate each forum.*

I disagree. In many cases some of the best and most accurate answers to queries have been provided by contributors who have learnt about stuff through direct experience and investigation rather than through formal qualifications. This is not to denigrate those valued contributors who _do_ come from a background of professional expertise in one or more relevant areas. To a large extent contributors' views are valued (or not) based on their reputation and track record on _AAM_. In any case, inaccurate information is generally swiftly rebutted or corrected by more knowledgeable contributors. 

Note that _AAM_ does not purport to be a substitute for independent, professional advice as explained in the .

*Registering and filtering through an editor achieves personal responsibility, not only in the quality and meaningfulness of the posts but also in the quality of the replies and bickering that we sometimes witness.*

I agree that some bouts of bickering (and worse) are annoying and distracting but I don't believe that they are prevalent enough to justify stricter control on who and what can be posted.

*Many have left this board because their spirits were broken by what really amounted to petty orchestrating.

Be they doctors, aviation experts, solicitors, intermediaries, if their strength was recognised and welcomed and they would still be onboard.*

Again, without specific examples, it's hard to comment on this but it is pertinent to note that many of our long term contributors are acting professionals in different areas.

*believe people don't necessarily want a quick answer they want the right answer and I feel the site is becoming too fragmented. Let someone else's web site specialise in gardening, let Egon Ronay recommend restaurants, let Michelin award the stars to a good bed for the night. Ask About Money's niche is asking about money. This is where it should excel.*

As I mentioned earlier I would have a similar view that non core financial topics are not really relevant to _AAM_ but I accept that the moderator and general contributor consensus seems to place you and me in a minority at the moment. This does not prevent people posting links to more appropriate sites where relevant.

*It is of utmost importance to build on and improve the spirit of Ask About Money and if it means making subtle changes then why not. But please don't shoot one of the messengers.*

Well trying to maintain previous and existing standards would be a start but improvement should probably be a higher goal all right!    But seriously, feedback such as your own is indeed welcome but I would strongly encourage you to back up specific criticisms with specific examples if at all possible. If you are not willing to do so here then perhaps you might consider sending them to _Brendan_ or one of the moderators by email or _ezBoard_ personal message?


----------



## Spacer (29 Jun 2004)

*..*

I think the AAM community, like any other community, has elements that can either appeal or repel, depending on one's preferences or sensitivities.  It's perhaps a reality of life that one can't have everything as one would like it. 

The main advantage of internet-based communities, however, is the freedom to "move" community if the overall experience feels negative. 

That said, I feel users should be given a certain latitude to express an opinion or vent their unhappiness/displeasure without having to justify their every word.   

In terms of AAM's continued popularity, I presume that the moderators can gauge the popularity of the site by measuring statistics for such aspects as:

Number/frequency of "hits"
hits per user
return hits, etc.

The information would surely offer more tangible evidence of where the site's going than the occasional negative comment posted here. 

However, it might be an idea to create a "suggestions/feedback" forum (is there room for one more?) in which issues could be raised and debated.  The usefulness of comments (such as the original of this thread) could be measured in terms of the support it attracts from other users.


----------



## ClubMan (29 Jun 2004)

*Re: ..*

*That said, I feel users should be given a certain latitude to express an opinion or vent their unhappiness/displeasure without having to justify their every word.*

I agree but I do think that if somebody has specific complaints then it follows logically and is not unreasonable to expect that they should endeavour to illustrate these with specific references if possible. 

*In terms of AAM's continued popularity, I presume that the moderators can gauge the popularity of the site by measuring statistics for such aspects as:*

Yes - _ezBoard_ provides some summary statistics on site activity on a rolling one month basis but we (moderators) don't tend to get too caught up in reviewing or analysing these to be honest. I think _Brendan_ might snapshot these from time to time for eventual comparative purposes. We certainly don't track activity by individual contributors and IP tracking is only accessible to three moderators and is only ever used in cases of suspected spamming or abuse. Because _AAM_ is hosted by _ezBoard_ we do not have access to low level HTTPlogging inforamtion or that level of detail. My gut feeling is that the site is inexorably and gradually becoming more active and popular but only analysis of the underlying statistics would prove or disprove this hunch. I certainly don't think that we have any sort of major crisis in terms of regular contributors falling by the wayside. Individual contributors come and go for various reasons and not always because they get disillusioned or intimidated off the site (ahem!   ).

*However, it might be an idea to create a "suggestions/feedback" forum (is there room for one more?) in which issues could be raised and debated. The usefulness of comments (such as the original of this thread) could be measured in terms of the support it attracts from other users.*

I think that we used to have one but dropped it as some point because it wasn't very active and/or due to pressure on space. Trying to have the right mix and number of forums - so that we don't have too few that are too general or too many that are too specific - is always a delicate balancing act so those that end up being quiet tend to get culled after a while. I guess in the absence of a dedicated forum we could open the  forum up (currently closed for posting by non moderators) for the posting of such comments, suggestions and feedback?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jun 2004)

EZ board provides statistics for the last month. Whenever I think of it, I copy them. Here are the daily posts for the last 18 monhts. Even allowing for the fact that around 5% of the posts recently are pointless, it's still growing.

From time to time, we open a suggestions forum, but we get very few suggestions. 

Can I make a suggestion? How about closing the Craic and Letting Off Steam for one month and allow people apply their energies to helping improve the quality of AAM by summarising and updating the key posts?


&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp posts
Nov-02&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 95
Dec-02&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 75
Jan-03&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 102
Feb-03&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 135
Mar-03&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 133
Apr-03&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 126
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 

Sept&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 188
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 
Nov-03&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 220
Dec-03&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 199
Apr-04&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 258
Jun-04&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp 264


----------



## John (30 Jun 2004)

The purpose of my post was to define a range of objectives, explore possibilities and to be open minded and flexible about the direction of AAM. 

Don't give up on the suggestions.

I feel one or two proposals met common ground so we may have gained some value by this brief exchange.


----------



## oilean (30 Jun 2004)

*Letting off steam and the Craic*

I think AAM should try restrict these forums to Registered Users

People asking about financial matters should be registered and unregistered
After all I would say that is how most new users started

But I fail to see how an unregistered user would find anything to post or comment on in The Craic or letting off steam

Personally, I really like the Craic and really dislike letting off steam but if they were restricted to regular registered users it would help


----------



## Natchessmen (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: Letting off steam and the Craic*

BB

Is the last suggestion technically feasible, to restrict certain forums to registered users? If so I would be in favour of it, however most of us started by asking a question in the business end of the board, so it is imperative that this is kept open.

Personally I don't think the craic is working as an experiment, there really are plenty of other places for jokes.  All the English football stuff was pinging around all day so IMHO no need for it here.

As for Letting off Steam, if memory serves me it was established because DAAM was being crowded by noise, if we ditch LOS will this not migrate back to DAAM?


Nat


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: Letting off steam and the Craic*

Hi Natchessmen

There is no technical difficulty in restricting any forum to registered users. So we could restrict The Craic and Letting Off Steam if we wanted to. If we decide to do it, we would simply delete any inappropriate post in Don't Askaboutmoney or in any other forum.

So if someone wants to post rubbish, they have to register. If they continue to post rubbish, we simply ban them. Yes they can re-register, but hopefully they would get the message.

Brendan


----------



## piggy (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: Letting off steam and the Craic*

I think restricting posting in LOS to registered users _only_ is not such a good idea. There's a number of regular unregistered users who make contributions both to this forum and financial ones. Restricting it to registered only users might alienate regular unregistered users and the forum would probably fall off somewhat.
Getting rid of it would be a bad idea personally. Just look at how popular it is!

As for The Craic. I don't think it's that popular or important to the site but I don't see the harm in it either. If getting rid of it will ease space on the board for future forums then perhaps it's a good idea.

_Change of mind!!_


----------



## N0elC (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: Letting off steam and the Craic*

Piggy said:



> Restricting {posting} to registered only users might alienate regular unregistered users ...



Or it might force them to come out from behind a multitude of aliases and post using their own identifiable handle.

I'm all for either closing both those fora, or restricting them to registered users only.

Most of the "jokes" on the Craic section are abysmal, and many stray into misogynism and xenophobia


----------



## piggy (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: Letting off steam and the Craic*

*Or it might force them to come out from behind a multitude of aliases and post using their own identifiable handle.*

I originally posted that I thought it was a good idea but changed my mind when I remembered the number of unregistered users who regularly post here under the _same_ alias. 

For this reason alone, it might be bad for the forum in general to force their hand, as it were. I guess some people are happier being unregistered.


----------



## Spacer (30 Jun 2004)

*..*

I think if people want to talk crap, they'll find a forum - whether it's LOS, DAMM or any other.

I don't think closing certain fora would eliminate the problem -  although restricting certain fora to registered users might reduce the volume.


----------



## piggy (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: ..*

*although restricting certain fora to registered users might reduce the volume.* 

Spacer, you're a good case in point to what I was talking about above. 

If LOS was closed to unregistered users would you bother registering to post there?


----------



## Spacer (30 Jun 2004)

*..*

I probaly would register.  In fact, I don't know why I haven't so far.  I've no conscientious objection to doing so, it's just that I've never found it necessary.

From my experience with the site, I would have absolute faith in the moderators' respect for the confidentiality of any information provided in the course of registration.


----------



## N0elC (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: ..*

In order not to deter newcomers, what about allowing unregistered users to post only in the "Absolute Beginners" section, and then requiring registration in all other areas ?


----------



## piggy (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: ..*

*In order not to deter newcomers, what about allowing unregistered users to post only in the "Absolute Beginners" section, and then requiring registration in all other areas ?* 

What about all the mortgages, debt problems/questions that newbies have? Forcing them to register to post there would see a huge fall off in activity I'd say.

It's really only the LOS section that needs it, if at all, IMO. Spacer's comments would suggest that it might not be such a problem...but who knows. There are other unregistered folks out there who regularly contribute. I guess the registering process is rather painless though.


----------



## ClubMan (30 Jun 2004)

*Re: ..*

I (personally and in my capacity as a moderator/administrator) would be against mandatory registration as long as the incidences of nuisance posting remain at levels that can be managed through the current approaches to moderation.


----------



## Marion (1 Jul 2004)

*Re: The Craic*

What's rather interesting about _The Craic_ is that most of the contributions for the past couple of months are from 

Marion :hat


----------



## Summer (2 Jul 2004)

*Why?*

Is there a benefit in registering?


----------



## daltonr (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*

I there a benefit in registering?

You can use Private Messaging, so users can take certain discussions offline.  If for example you want to give another poster your address for any reason, it's obviously better to do it privately.

Also, you can edit your posts, which might sometimes be useful.

Also you get a little counter telling you how many posts you've done.  When you reach 5000 posts Brendan sends you a cheque for €1000 and a bottle of Champagne.  So he tells me anyway.

-Rd


----------



## ClubMan (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*

There's a list of registered user features in the .


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*

The major advantage is the ability to edit your post, if you need to clarify something or correct a heading or a typo.

The other huge advantage is the ability to mark forums and threads as "read". It allows you see immediately you log on which threads have new posts since you last visited. 

Nobody else can post in your name. If you establish a reputation as the unregistered user, Tharg, someone else could destroy your reputation by using the name as well. If you register as a user, no one else can use that name.

Brendan


----------



## piggy (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*

Having given this minimal thought I would still think that regardless of the bonuses of registering or not...it would not get rid of some posters who try to make everyone's life difficult.

How long does it take to register...then register another name etc...

Not that it's that important anyway...just thought I'd point that out.


----------



## rainyday (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*



> How long does it take to register...then register another name etc...


I'm pretty sure that you need a unique email address for each name registered, so the trouble-makers would have to register for a unique email address (with one of the free email providers) and then register with ezboard each time.

It is not an insurmountable barrier but it is a deterrent to casual trolling.


----------



## cushtie (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*

new people come to the site to get advice on money matters first and foremost. I think getting into discussions on DAAM (LOS and The Craic) etc should be restricted to registered users

I know when I started using AAM I asked a few questions as an unreg (dipping a toe in if you like), eventually when I saw the value in the site I decided to register to avail of the features that Brendan described above. 

I would be inclined to rename the top half of the forum to something like "Please ask a question about money" and leave it open to all users.

The bottom half I would rename to something like "Discuss Other Topics (requires registration to post)" 

this would be open to all who want to read but only registered users to post. 

If people feel strongly enough about a discussion etc they will go to the trouble of registering instead of throwing in some random reply

ie 

Just my thoughts on it


----------



## Elcato (2 Jul 2004)

*Re: Why?*



> Nobody else can post in your name. If you establish a reputation as the unregistered user, Tharg, someone else could destroy your reputation by using the name as well.


Of course you could self-inflict this.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (4 Jul 2004)

*Why register?*

_Brendan said (in relation to "Why register?&quot _


> Nobody else can post in your name. If you establish a reputation as the unregistered user, Tharg, someone else could destroy your reputation by using the name as well. If you register as a user, no one else can use that name.


 That used to be the case, but it's not strictly true now. A year or so ago, even if you posted as an unregistered user, you had to put _something_ (anything) in the password box, even though there was no registered username/password combination to check it against. If you didn't, you'd get a message saying that you'd left a field blank, and you had to go back. Therefore, if there _was_ someone who had already registered that name, and the password didn't match the registered one, your post wouldn't be accepted. However, now it's possible to leave the password box blank. If you type in a registered username and leave the password box blank, the post is accepted and is published with that username, as an unregistered user. If people aren't really paying attention, are they going to notice that the poster's name is in black rather than blue? More likely they'll accept it at face value as a post from whoever.

I've done this with this post here, just to show you. Compare it with the post beneath where I've used my password (but not logged in; I virtually never do that).


----------



## cobalt (4 Jul 2004)

*used actual password this time*

I, for one, would prefer if this situation were changed back to the former one, if it's just a simple question of a moderator enabling an option for forums such as "Require completion of all fields". Could one of the moderators please check if this is possible?

I realise this might not be popular with our prolific _<blank>_ poster, but perhaps a space could be used for a username and it would still look blank. Heck, perhaps that's what they're already doing – I haven't checked whether you have to put something such as a space in the username box or can leave it completely empty (and I don't really want to because the lack of a name has - rightly or wrongly - become a person's username on these boards now).

Note that my suggestion above is completely separate from requiring people to register. If the change suggested is implemented (and I hope it can be) posters can still remain unregistered, but will have to type something – anything at all, it doesn't have to be the same each time even if you are using the same unregistered name – in the password box when they post.

For myself, I'd like to point out that all genuine posts from cobalt (except the one above, and one other post on Microsoft prices in France a few minutes ago, where I tried leaving the password blank as an experiment) are as the registered cobalt. But it shouldn't be necessary to make such a declaration. Unfortunately, the system at present is wide open to abuse. I don't think there are many people that would seek to exploit this deliberately (although some newcomers who aren't familiar with frequent posters' names might accidentally use a registered name with a black password), but if the loophole doesn't have to exist and potentially create confusion about who posted what, why let it?


----------



## ClubMan (4 Jul 2004)

*Re: used actual password this time*

*A year or so ago, even if you posted as an unregistered user, you had to put something (anything) in the password box, even though there was no registered username/password combination to check it against. If you didn't, you'd get a message saying that you'd left a field blank, and you had to go back. Therefore, if there was someone who had already registered that name, and the password didn't match the registered one, your post wouldn't be accepted.*

That's an interesting point and an excellent suggestion. However, was it the case that this feature used to be available with the _ezBoard_ based _AAM_ as opposed to the earlier incarnation based on _UBB_? I checked the _ezBoard_ configuation settings and can't see any option that seems to control the "mandatory password" functionality other than  which seems a bit restrictive as long as we don't want mandatory registration? It would indeed be a good idea if unregistered users could be prevented from reusing registered names. Even <blank> would just have to accept that.


----------



## cobalt (4 Jul 2004)

*reasons for registering*

By the way, for anyone who's dithering about registering, I'd say the single biggest advantage is the facility to edit your posts. I didn't intend that smiley to appear in the unregistered cobalt's post - I must have accidentally used the punctuation combination that produces it and not unchecked the emoticons box - and now I can't get rid of it. I've even tried logging in as cobalt, but it's not recognised as my own post (unlike the one beneath). Tarnation.

But I would not be in favour of mandatory registration for all forums. (Ambivalent about requiring registration for the DAAM ones.)


----------



## cobalt (4 Jul 2004)

*ezboard*

Honestly ClubMan, you need a little lightning flash avatar or something! This crossing posts business is frustrating! Maybe I just need to learn how to type faster.

No, I'm pretty sure it was ezboard. I've seen the old UBB archives (and used that software on another board) and it's different. But maybe it was a different version of ezboard? I started posting (as an unregistered user) just before the deadline for SSIAs expired, so it would have been around March 2002. If you look at the SSIA forum, there are posts in the current ezboard system from before that.

There was even a case where I accidentally fell across someone else's username and password in the beginning. Back then I used pretty much whatever username came into my head at the time - a different one for each topic, all unregistered - and in one case I used a name that someone else (not a regular poster) had registered. They'd used the username as the password, and when I unwittingly typed it for the 2nd time - as a convenient 'pseudo-password' into the password box, lo and behold it came up as a registered user. (It was only about the 2nd or 3rd post in that name. They'd obviously posted, got the info they wanted, and gone away again. I've never seen them post since either.) So I then posted a disclaimer/apology, and I think it was Marion who made the point that people shouldn't use obvious passwords.


----------



## cobalt (4 Jul 2004)

*mandatory fields*

Could it possibly be in a different control section? The way I look at it, it's not really about controlling _who_ can post (it's accepted in this scenario that anyone - registered or unregistered - can), it's a question of _what fields _ they must include when posting. Is there anywhere that offers a control to make completion of the subject field mandatory or optional? (You get the 'some fields are missing' message I spoke about earlier if you try to post without a subject line at present.)
If you can find such a control, I'd expect the _password = mandatory/optional_ one to be in the same control section.

Possibly in the same area as the 'post display order' option that you fixed the other day? (Thanks, btw.)


----------



## ClubMan (4 Jul 2004)

*Re: mandatory fields*

No - I've gone through the board and individual forum configuration settings in detail and I can't see anything that controls making entry of a password, even for an unregistered user, mandatory I'm afraid... :\


----------



## cobalt (4 Jul 2004)

*mandatory fields*

Pity. Oh well, I guess as long as people are alert to the potential problems...
Thanks for looking.


----------



## ClubMan (4 Jul 2004)

*Re: ezboard*

I checked the  and the options for controlling who can post do not seem to include one in which unregistered users are allowed but must enter a password to avoid reusing an existing registered name. Perhaps this is a deprecated or redundant _ezBoard_ feature? Are you sure that in the early days you didn't automatically enter a password anyway or assume that it was mandatory even for unregistered posters? Or do you know for sure that _ezBoard_ did insist on one being entered even for an unregistered username? The only way to ensure that there is no confusion about the identity of a poster seems to be to implement a policy of mandatory registration or use the _MBA_ feature...


----------



## Cobalt (6 Jul 2004)

*Can I post as Cobalt*

Cobalt - I am confused. 

Are we trying to protect registered users here? 

I am pretending to be you. I typed in your name in the User Name box and didn't bother with a password. So this will come from an unregistered user Cobalt.

If this works, I agree it's a problem, but only a small problem. If any registered user disowns an unregistered post, any moderator will simply delete it.

Brendan Burgess


----------



## Brendan Burgess (6 Jul 2004)

*Re: Can I post as Cobalt*

Reply from ezboard:

_There used to be an option that prevented a guest from using a registered members username, but that was removed well over a year ago (longer actually).

The reason for that is that it's actually very easy to tell an unregistered user from a registered user. The username linking to the profile is the main one, but by default it also has "unregistered user" as the user level. _

Brendan


----------



## ClubMan (6 Jul 2004)

*Re: Can I post as Cobalt*

Aha - thanks for getting to the bottom of that one _Brendan_. Which help forum did you find that answer in?


----------



## cobalt (7 Jul 2004)

*the real cobalt!!*

Thanks for following that up Brendan. Yes, the intention was to protect registered users from the possibility that someone else could post in their name – whether accidentally (if a new or infrequent user simply doesn't know that a particular name is already in use by a registered user) or deliberately.

When I'm reading a thread, I really just notice the names – not the status written beneath them, nor whether they're blue (registered) or black (unregistered). I'd only really look at that if I thought a post was out of character – for example Jem giving out about how unpleasant smokers are, or rainyday praising Fianna Fáil. Otherwise, if something had a particular name beside it, I'd take it at face value. But many regular-ish posters wouldn't have any particular image/character associated with them (especially people who don't post much on the debate-type threads in DAAM), and posts therefore wouldn't attract attention as 'out of character', even if they had in fact been written by someone else.

As it stands, in order for a user to disown a post, they first have to notice it, and not everyone would browse all the threads.

However, I agree it's not likely to be a big problem. I just thought that if the option was still available, it would be useful to re-activate it.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (7 Jul 2004)

*Re: the real cobalt!!*

Hi Clubman

I asked the question in the EZBoard supporters forum and the answer came back very quickly.

Brendan


----------

