deskthority

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 16:58**

ohaimark wrote: At least we'll have "taxed" them for the competition, then.

As to the whole elitism thing... I feel pride in my contributions, both in finance and content, though I wouldn't go around calling people peasants. Club members pay money to support the club and server. We also tend to contribute a lot.

True, some non-club members contribute more than members in terms of content. That's the exception, I think, and not the rule.

It's perfectly fine to take pride in your contributions. Peasant was an hyperbolic term, please don't think I feel almighty and/or lottery rich

At this point I'd just be repeating what I already said so there is little point in pursuing this. Threads behind a pay wall are steps in the wrong direction. I hope we don't get to see what other threads people will request to be moved to the newly created private sub-forum that will have a single thread.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:00**

Just make sure to read what I posted above that chunk of text. I like the 1st of the two bits much better.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:01**

Generally speaking I'm not against a "peep show" section visible to just registered users, but honestly I'm not sure it is really needed.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:04**

Would it have naked keyboards?

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:06**

Spikebolt wrote: […] Threads behind a pay wall […]

Oh, come on, stop slandering.
There’s no "pay wall", but a place for committed members.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:07**

There is no pay wall, but a payment is required to prove your commitment. Seriously, who's really slandering?

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:14**

webwit wrote: Would it have naked keyboards?

man boobs is the best you can ask I'm afraid.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:15**

@Spikebolt you're right, but kbdfr is right too.

We can't prevent people donate money for the wrong reasons.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:26**

I don't honestly think anyone in the club has donated just to show off.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:31**

Ah, the age old discussion!
I'm still undecided about this issue...
On one hand, we have the great finds thread, which has helped me get some keyboards I wouldn't have otherwise (my AT and beamspring among them- almost all BIN), and I'm sure has done the same for many other members of this community.
On the other hand, it's open visibility has probably jacked up the price needlessly for some items, to the dismay of the same community.
Being a club member, in my view, is not about perks or privileges, it's about supporting the community. So I'd say no to a club-only thread.
Closing it to unregistered people wouldn't really accomplish anything other than raise the registered users meter. So I think leaving it as-is is the correct path.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:42**

Blaise170 wrote: I don't honestly think anyone in the club has donated just to show off.

Well, obviously I sort of have:
want-to-buy-f56/og-iso-enter-black-on-b ... ml#p280671
And I have to confess it wasn’t the first time:
w-a-n-t-t-o-b-u-y-f59/2-25-2-75-blank-k ... ml#p248419

"pay wall"

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:49**

This reminds me I never got that SAY. Guy said he'll ship it, then went off the face of the earth

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:50**

ohaimark wrote: An alternative that was mentioned which I'd like to pursue more is a "wanted keyboards" addition to one's profile. If we make the items within that list searchable somehow, I'd check to see if anyone here wanted "Space Invaders" or "Green Alps" before I posted it publicly.

I think that this idea is probably the most productive suggestion: apply it to registered members, and help each other to get what we seek, without risk of price gouging by speculators.

I've been in touch with XMIT about keyboards he has to offer, and possibly collecting several orders into one to spread shipping costs. This can be better coordinated between members by having a searchable index showing what each of us seek and what we would pay for it. It might encourage a more civilised way to trade, no?

I have read all the arguments for and against restricting access to members, and on balance I can't see how it would help matters against thieves, speculators and untrustworthy traders. The searchable index of members who want-to-buy looks like a much better proposition.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:54**

The reason I suggest requiring registration is less about the people jacking up prices and more about keeping sellers from googling and finding the thread and then selling their stuff at jacked up prices.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 17:57**

We could do it with a Google Sheets spreadsheet if the forum tech won't support it... I'd be happy to make, maintain, and publicize the document.

Edit: I still agree with requiring forum registration for viewing. The post above had a good point.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 18:00**

Registration will cut out quite a bit more than you would think, sure the person who uses the thread for there own evil ends would just register but i think the random googler make up mot of it and that would stop.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 19:36**

If you want to be off google searches, there is a robots.txt for that.

If you want snipers off "your secret auctions", forcing registering won't help it. Nobody accidently finds this and is willing to bid serious money about something they haven't heard about before. People interested in it will just register.
If I'd see a "you need to register to see this" anywhere here, I would be disappointed in this community. Mostly anything here promotes openness (in code, hardware, thoughts...) without even mentioning it. I always felt this community is about sharing (with very few exceptions), mostly about sharing information. Heck, the FSSK-thread could in theory increase the marketvalues of SSKs, better close that one too!

I see an opportunity for a different thread, though. One that has a different purpose as the "here's an opportunity to buy something". A "I am interested in this thing, if you are as well, let's talk about it before we both bid on it". It is obviously a different purpose than the great finds. If we want something like this, I would be fine with that. It isn't typical for DT, but even for outsiders it would be obvious, why this information isn't shared with the public. It would be more like a pm-broadcast, that doesn't clobber the inbox and not annoy anyone not interested in ebay.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 20:28**

this ^

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 20:32**

Ray wrote: A "I am interested in this thing, if you are as well, let's talk about it before we both bid on it". It is obviously a different purpose than the great finds. If we want something like this, I would be fine with that. It isn't typical for DT, but even for outsiders it would be obvious, why this information isn't shared with the public. It would be more like a pm-broadcast, that doesn't clobber the inbox and not annoy anyone not interested in ebay.

I'd vote for this.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 20:37**

I like Ray's Idea.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 20:45**

and using a "robots.txt" for that thread would make sense but I doubt it can be technically feasible for just one thread... most probably not even for subforums.. what do you think?

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 21:43**

tentator wrote: and using a "robots.txt" for that thread would make sense but I doubt it can be technically feasible for just one thread... most probably not even for subforums.. what do you think?

A "robots.txt" like this, perhaps?

Code: Select all

User-agent: *
Disallow: /other-external-f66/

Would that work?

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 21:45**

We're talking code now? Hey, what did I miss!

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 21:47**

well, I am not a webadmin or anything like that, but I had the impression a simple

Code: Select all

User-agent: *
Disallow: /other-external-f66/great-interesting-finds

would do it. But seriously, I don't know anything on that regard.

Edit: BUT that wasn't the core of my statement. I just wanted to say, required logins suck and there are probably better alternatives.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 21:49**

tigpha wrote:
tentator wrote: and using a "robots.txt" for that thread would make sense but I doubt it can be technically feasible for just one thread... most probably not even for subforums.. what do you think?

A "robots.txt" like this, perhaps?

Code: Select all

User-agent: *
Disallow: /other-external-f66/

Would that work? A bit brutal, as the entire "Other external" category is no longer searchable...

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 21:52**

Muirium wrote: We're talking code now? Hey, what did I miss!

Sorry µ, nothing too fancy, merely configuration. I have yet to reveal my telecoms-grade nine-nines coding chops.

And I note that I'm incapable of posting without duplication! Ooops!

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 22:11**

Note that phpBB recognises search bots based on user agent (our list might be a bit outdated), and sees them as users in a bot group, with certain permissions that can be used anywhere to hide content for example. That's not some kind of security, but google would comply.

Not that it matters because I don't think google is the problem. It fetches often, but not real time. The topic has many views. It is just being watched.

Posted: **11 Feb 2016, 23:40**

google is able to quite intelligently understand and adapt on frequently searched forums (and then also clicked on their results page).. that's why it fetches often I immagine.. standard sites would get a fetch per month.. just to give a comparison..

but I think the robots.txt would definitely hurt the sellers.. not the pontential buyers.. again: it thepends what's the thing you want to fight? sellers? buyers? which ones? forum memebers?

Posted: **15 Feb 2016, 01:49**

I think this is a terrible idea. One, it goes against the openness the principles of this site by suddenly restricting access to some part of the site. Two, someone could easy just register as a user, start an accompanying thread somewhere else, and post every link from the DT Great Finds thread to somewhere else. It will not be hard to outsmart this poorly thought out idea.

Posted: **15 Feb 2016, 01:51**

Pfft.

We've done a lot of thinking, and arguing already, if you care to read it. But apparently not…

deskthority

On making "great finds" private to registered users only