Thanks Thanks:  29
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Important Announcement For Forum Users Who Are Not Also Gagb Members

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default Important Announcement For Forum Users Who Are Not Also Gagb Members

    Several years ago we were asked to enable non-members to join our forums and therefore to post without becoming GAGB members. This was agreed and resulted in two databases, one recording GAGB membership and another recording forum membership.

    The use of two databases has resulted in confusion (for example people donít understand why they canít vote as GAGB members even though they are forum members if they haven't joined both, and sometimes the incorrect status is shown in forums) and results in an ongoing maintenance overhead to keep records correct. The ever increasing number of users has resulted in the databases becoming increasingly unmanageable.

    We recently polled our members on this subject and they voted 136-6 to move to a single database which has now been ratified by the committee. People who are currently Forum Members and not GAGB members (as shown in their forum title or in their profile) will have their accounts locked unless they change to GAGB members before the 1st June 2012. This can be done by contacting upgrade@gagb.org.uk People who do not become GAGB members will still be able to read our public forums as a guest and their previous posts will still be recorded.

    We will attempt to contact Forum members who have joined in the last 18 months to invite them to upgrade but cannot guarantee that such messages will get through or that contact will be made.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Halifax, uk
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Do you think a mass mailing is in order to inform those who are (or are not) members, but rarely visit? Perhaps with a link to the signup page?

    Thanks

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    That's what we're intending to do, please see the last line of my post above.

  4. #4
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    I guess one should take comfort that at least six GAGB members feel that a caching organisation which purports to make rules for all cachers should allow those who choose not to be members a voice in the rules which GAGB claims apply to them. Nevertheless it is disappointing that an organisation which could do so much good for cachers and caching cannot see the benefit in having non-members contribute to its forums.

    It is not good enough to lock accounts as that would leave redundant personal data which I could no longer update; instead the accounts must be deleted. As the alleged reason for removing non-members is because the two databases cause confusion then all that is required is to delete the database that holds the forum-only members. All posts and personal messages must also be deleted or anonymised.

  5. #5
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    It is not good enough to lock accounts as that would leave redundant personal data which I could no longer update; instead the accounts must be deleted. As the alleged reason for removing non-members is because the two databases cause confusion then all that is required is to delete the database that holds the forum-only members. All posts and personal messages must also be deleted or anonymised.
    A wise post.

    Under the data protection act I'm certain that if you hold personal data about someone that is incorrect you need to give them a route to update it. I know your not storing credit card numbers but things such as an email address come under the personal data header.

    The UK has some strict data laws, I don't pretend know to any of them that well but I think it would be good practice to remove the data including posts.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Porthcawl S Wales
    Posts
    481

    Default

    136 thought differently and majority vote rules

    Lilian

  7. #7
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mollyjak View Post
    136 thought differently and majority vote rules

    Lilian


    To be clear - I agree with the outcome, but I think the implementation requires a little more thought.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    I would suggest that all of the Forum User accounts left as such on the implemention date be deleted, thus all details will be removed. Any posts made under those accounts will then be listed as by a Guest. Once the accounts are deleted all personal data, inclucing PM's, will be deleted from the system.
    Last edited by DrDick&Vick; 28th April 2012 at 01:27 PM.

  9. #9
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    I would suggest that all of the Forum User accounts left as such on the implemention date be deleted, thus all details will be removed. Any posts made under those accounts will then be listed as by a Guest. Once the accounts are deleted all personal data, inclucing PM's, will be deleted from the system.
    I agree

    A further benefit to this would be that if someone decided to become a member later down the line they would just need to re-register. Under the current intended method this couldn't happen without mod action as the username would need to be unlocked.

    I know the original posts would be marked as "Guest" but this would not necessary anonymise the info, to be safe I think they should also be deleted.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Then there would be loads od disjointed threads, many without the original posting.
    Posts are just a user's views and should not need to be deleted.

  11. #11
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    It's a little more than just keeping the forum looking pretty and looking at the post count over the past few weeks I don't think removing the posts will cause a big issue anyway.

    By locking or deleting a user you remove their ability to edit or remove content they have added (they could arguably own the copyright too). Even if the poster name changes to "Guest" it doesn't mean they no longer own it.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Cotswolds
    Posts
    672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I guess one should take comfort that at least six GAGB members feel that a caching organisation which purports to make rules for all cachers should allow those who choose not to be members a voice in the rules which GAGB claims apply to them. Nevertheless it is disappointing that an organisation which could do so much good for cachers and caching cannot see the benefit in having non-members contribute to its forums.

    It is not good enough to lock accounts as that would leave redundant personal data which I could no longer update; instead the accounts must be deleted. As the alleged reason for removing non-members is because the two databases cause confusion then all that is required is to delete the database that holds the forum-only members. All posts and personal messages must also be deleted or anonymised.
    Well, I completely agree with this

    But majority vote does rule here...
    GAGB Committee Member
    2015-20

    Author of my Geocaching Blog ~ SUBSCRIBE.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    If I ever cease to be a member of GAGB I hope that all my forum posts will remain in place with my name above them.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  14. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    Any posts I have made, on any forum, have been non secretive/non personal/helpful to others/general info and I would see no reason for them to be deleted.
    Maybe the best idea would be to simply ask the persons concerned whether they wish their posts to be deleted or not. This could be done in the same email that is to be distributed among the Forum Users.

  15. #15
    Ve8 Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    Maybe the best idea would be to simply ask the persons concerned whether they wish their posts to be deleted or not. This could be done in the same email that is to be distributed among the Forum Users.
    Sounds like a plan, the devil as always is in the detail. What would happen to the non-responders posts by default?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •