No hiding place!

trafalgar_2

edinburghlass wrote:

Therefore I personally would prefer we could use the invisible button and sorry but I don't see what that has to do with "rating a thread?" :D

Am I right edinburghlass in thinking we worked out that even if you went invisible that anyone who had you on their buddy list could still see that you were online anyway

or was that just a glitch on the test site

Edinburghlass_2

trafalgar wrote:

Am I right edinburghlass in thinking we worked out that even if you went invisible that anyone who had you on their buddy list could still see that you were online anyway

or was that just a glitch on the test site

That was no glitch on the test site, William turned off the invisible thingy:eek::eek:

But prior to the turning off, if you were invisible you were actually invisible even to your buddies.

trafalgar_2

edinburghlass wrote:

That was no glitch on the test site, William turned off the invisible thingy:eek::eek:

But prior to the turning off, if you were invisible you were actually invisible even to your buddies.

I thought your buddys could still see you ................thanks for clearing that up

System

I turned the inivisibility feature off because I was told to. It's pointless hiding.

And anyway, a stalker on a forum? so? They can't harm you, all they can do is post... isn't like they can find you're address, knock on you're door and say "muahahaha I was the one stalking you on the MSE forums!" :P

I've been on forums waaaaaaaaaay larger then this, and admined one of them too... trust me, stalkers are nothing on forums, harmless infact... its quite silly getting worried about it

Oh, and the thread rating thing, I bring that up because every liked thread rating, but not who's online, when they perform the same function at the end of the day - so it baffled me how that can be liked/disliked when they are the same

Apologies if I sound harsh/blunt/abrupt... as I say, thats how I am (I try not being harsh, but I'm certainly abrupt and blunt), plus it gets my point across quite clearly.

trafalgar_2

MSE_William wrote:

Oh, and the thread rating thing, I bring that up because every liked thread rating, but not who's online, when they perform the same function at the end of the day - so it baffled me how that can be liked/disliked when they are the same

Apologies if I sound harsh/blunt/abrupt... as I say, thats how I am (I try not being harsh, but I'm certainly abrupt and blunt), plus it gets my point across quite clearly.

You can be as blunt and abrupt as you wish William but can you please explain HOW thread rating and users online is the same

Labasheedy

Thank you for that err.. contribution William, but your post was really quite unclear, quite opinionated and not very diplomatic to say the least.


I would appeal to whomever made the decision to allow us the option of this function if we may, as sometimes it just doesn't suit for many different reasons to be logged in as online.

thanks

aliasojo

Well I'm flabbergasted!

I have great respect for all who have the ability to create and maintain a forum such as this. I am well aware of the work involved and I'm very appreciative of the fact that this site is available to us at no cost.

I feel I should make that clear first, before I say my piece in reply to William's post(s).

I have to say, that William's reasoning astounds me tbh. I'm also a bit surprised at his condescending tone. It would seem from his posts that he is ridiculing our concerns. Adult discussion does not have to end in two parties agreeing, but surely sensible arguements that are put forward should be taken into consideration? I'm a bit surprised over the way our views on this function have been overridden so easily. There are threads on this site asking for feedback, but it would appear only certain feedback is welcome. :rolleyes:

William states: 'It's pointless hiding'.

I wasn't very concerned about the stalker angle, but I am concerned about my privacy. There have been occasions in the past where I have been interested in a particular thread, but because of the topic, I have not wanted people to know of my interest, for personal reasons. As no-one (then) could see where on site I was, then there was no issue.

There are countless meets springing up all over the place, I think this is a good thing, it's nice when friendships develop. However, I would not necessarily want my new found friends to know I was viewing the 'where to get a free vibrator' thread. (Stop s n i g g e r i n g - I used that as an example!) (Had to put spaces as word wasn't allowed.)

The point is, the choice of whether to be seen or remain invisible has been taken away from me, which means I will now be less likely to visit threads or view posts that perhaps I might have done if I were invisible.

Does it make such a difference to site resources that this function needs to be disabled? I'm still not clear why it had to be.

William also states: 'because everyone liked the thread rating but not who's online, when they perform the same function at the end of the day'

and:

'its like the thread rating feature... if that was liked, then why isn't "Who's Online"? they're basically the same - they both show the more popular forum/threads... so logically, if you don't like one you shouldn't like the other.'

Where on earth is the logic here? You are completely missing the point. Thread rating has nothing whatsoever to do with who's online. I don't see how you can compare the two. The function of thread rating is to rate how good/popular a thread is, is it not? Who's online is a tool to watch where a person is or what they are doing? How can that possibly be the same? One deals with popularity, the other deals with privacy.

I'm sure no one cares being seen as being logged on, that's a general thing. Being able to see which thread a member is reading, or that they are pm'ing is too invasive and is not ok.

Also stated by William: 'This "Who's Online" feature is native to many large forums, even those that are bigger then ours.'

With respect William, that statement is totally irrelevent. There is no purchase in pointing out what other forums do. We're not talking about other forums.

In fact, am I right in assuming you are still quite young? The reason I ask is because that's the kind of remark my son would come out with.......

' Oh but I'm doing that too 'cos so and so does it.' Get the idea?

Perhaps I'm being condescending now, but how does it go again?......Oh yes...'that's how I am and it gets my point across.' :rolleyes:

Respect is very much a two-way street.

tru

You don't have to be seen, you can read the posts without being logged in. You only have to log in if you want to post. I know cos I just tried it

trafalgar_2

I do not like the idea that I can be tracked around the boards and I totally understand your points Aliasojo ,when I want to view somewhere I don't necessarily want everyone to see I simply log out to do so .................however I see no reason why we should have to do that when there is a 'invisible' function to allow us to do it without having to log out all the time.

Maybe they can disable the function that enables people to be tracked ,the part that announces where you are in your profile.............problem solved:)

aliasojo

I know you do not have to log in to view posts Troo. How practical is it to have to continually log in and out every time someone posts on a thread you want to view privately though? A popular thread can be posted on regularly which means you'd be forever in and out.

That seems ridiculous to me. As I said earlier, being seen online isn't a problem on the whole, it's the invasive bit that's wrong.

I agree Traf, disabling the tracking bit seem obvious (if it can be done).