Non-subscriber access to Forums has increased?

Oh my yes, the photos being able to be seen by all does bother me. I'm sure it was a false security but somehow I felt like paying members viewing them was ok. I don't think personal pictures will be shared as often now.

edited as my remarks seem to have been misinterpreted

This message was edited Jul 11, 2005 11:04 AM

I have serious concerns about this as well. With this change, anything I ever typed in DG (with the exception of a few forums, I don't know which ones) can be picked up in Google. I see Zanymuse's and Countrygardens' points, in that there are too many subscribers for something to really be considered private anyway, and in that if someone really wanted to find out about us they would have just paid the $15. Rather, it's the possibility of things now showing up randomly on search engines that's getting me.

I think when something is available just to subscribers, there was sort of a sense of shared "vulnerability", if you will - kind of like the address exchange. For anyone who can see my address, I can also see theirs. For anyone who could read my posts, I could also read theirs, if they made any. It was a certain means of security, if only at a very basic level.

Now, I'm thinking of going back over all the threads I ever made, and removing identifying details and remarks. It's as if things that I said within a clearly delineated community have now been opened up to the whole world, without my knowledge (until now), or consent.

I look forward to your comments, Dave and/or Terry, when you have a chance.

Shannon

Edited to say,
I think this thread needs to be a sticky! It looks as if a lot of people were caught off guard by all of their prior posts being opened up to a wider audience.

This message was edited Jul 3, 2005 1:05 PM

Calm down, fellows. There are no black helicopters here and we are not "out to destroy your privacy".

Further, I only just now found out about this thread (thanks for an email from a member). TuttiFrutti, posting something controversal and scary on a Saturday night was bad form, as you must have known that I wouldn't even see the thread, in all likeliness, until Monday morning. Therefore panic ensues for 36 hours in the meantime.

This isn't a big deal and we didn't hide this information (in fact, Terry posted publicly about it). We make changes ALL THE TIME without announcing it, and if this is a big problem for everyone I will be happy to reverse our decision.

I think everyone needs to take a big breath, put the pitch forks down and think about this.

I'll post more later.

Dave

smiln32 wrote:

It has always been this way. Anybody on the entire planet has full access to all the information here; all they need to do is pay me a measly $5 and they have access. There is NO privacy on the forums here, and any feelings contrarywise are just false security.



Thanks, Carla, for your kind words and not knee-jerking. I've known you a long time and therefore I appreciate you kindly contacting me directly and privately with your concerns. You could have screamed at me publicly, but it was very big of you not to.

Wait a minute... that was sarcasm.

---------------

I'm now going to go through and read everyone else's notes and concerns here and see what I should do.

dave

Hi Dave,

Welcome to the fray :-) lol Please count my vote for reversing the change.

With respect to TuttiFrutti's posting this, I'm glad she posted it when she did - or I would not have known. Thanks, TuttiFrutti!!

It now seems that any of our posts will show up on Google, for anyone to see. I would have certain conversations in the context of a gardening club that I wouldn't have in the New York Times. Now, all my past contributions appear to have been published in the New York Times (to stay with the example), without my consent. I can go over all my old posts and revise them accordingly, but it will take a lot of time - I would rather just have things returned to the way they were before, with a limited audience being able to see them. In my opinion, it's one of the things that make the difference between subscribing and not.

Shannon

Dave...you're so funny...

You're right...folks can get excited and I know you want everyone to be happy.

I would rather keep my false sense of security and think that only the family is looking at my posts :) Surely no-one would pay a whole $15 just to be noisey....LOL...right !

Its your garden...appreciate your concern..would rather keep things a bit more close to the vest for me :) or at least have that perception ;)

I'd like to see the regional ones closed as well as the general discussion ones. I personally don't have a problem with the plant forums being open however.

I am finished with the work; it is now reversed and we are back to normal.

There, that really wasn't that difficult, was it? Next time, please just ask...

I won't be back here for a while, maybe I'll be in Monday.

Dave

Thanks, Dave.

Thank you for responding, Dave. My timing was poor, and I sincerely apologize for not taking that into consideration when I posted. :(

And I apologize for my harsh and rash words. :(

All is well, now. :)

Dave, I was surprised when you said you wouldn't have seen it until Monday morning. I just assumed you were like all the other addicts here and checked in multiple times everyday. It never occurred to me that this is also a job for you and that maybe you like to take a break now and then. LOL I hope you and your family have a fun Fourth.

I have to disagree here with part of the statement that anyone who wants to, can access this for $5. Most criminals are not going to join a subscription site (even $5) just to see if there is potential for a scam. There has to be something, usually found by an internet search, that attracts them to the site.

I am about the least alarmist person I know but I can think of a couple if instances right off hand. With the change in policy, perverts trolling the internet could see pictures of our children and grandchildren, like the looks of some cute little darling, and join because they want more access. Joining, posting a fictitious address in the addy exchange, and bingo, they have the address of where that little darling is! There are people here who have posted very personal things, that make them vulnerable, in the prayer forum. Illness, loss of a spouse, many things can make someone vulnerable to a scammer or worse. If this is available to be read by someone NOT a member, then bingo, he has reason to join. For a measly $5. There is no control over the addy exchange, there are subscribers in it who have nothing more than a name and state. That violates the stated intent. I, for one, am removing myself from the addy exchange.

Thank you Dave, for changing it back, however I am very disappointed in the judgement call that allowed it in the first place, especially without notifying subscribers in advance. I am editing some of my posts, anyway, just in case this type of "executive decision" happens again.

Dave - thanks for the responsiveness. I am sure that changes are continually made - and I know you will find that some are sensitive to subscribers. I am glad that you did reverse back to the original position of restricting access past the first post, something that is clearly valued by many here.

Paid subscribers are rarely banned - I do know of a few cases, but it's this extra layer of membership that does provide an (albeit false) sense of security and hopefully ensures that those who do have full access comply with your AUP, etc. or face the consequences of losing subscription. The downside of having everything open, the AUP would had diminished strength.

I think it's also an eye-opener for people here, to be much more cautious and wary of the what is posted here - that nothing here is private, merely restricted to people who at least make the effort to sign up, spend a little money and hopefully adhere to the terms of the AUP.

Terre brings up a good point. Dave, would you consider advising subscribers on this type of change ahead of time, if it ever is contemplated again? I know you make changes all the time, but there was something different about this one - it felt somewhat unsettling. I no longer feel quite as at ease posting in DG as I had before. If I had some assurance that there would be a discussion ahead of time, if this change were contemplated in the future, I would feel much better about continuing to post in the meantime.

What would you think of floating a balloon next time, Dave?

Thank you Dave! :)

With the change back, however, we have lost the ability to edit our posts.

Meant to edit my previous post, but it looks like that functionality has been removed from this specific thread - but, I did want to say that based on the strong reaction, I hope broad changes like this be posted in the future so people can either respond or make an informed decision whether they accept such changes and want to stay. Thanks for the efforts!

Thanks for the reversal Dave. Perhaps it was a case of subscribers being part of the Ostrich way of thinking...head in sand.

Until the reversal every person on the planet could conceivably see every post. Correct?

After the reversal 169,000+ members can read the first post only (except for 4 or so forums). Correct?

Only subscribers may now once again read all posts and view all threads. Which begs the question, how many subscribers do we now have? 30,000....40,000.....?

Anything we post as subscribers should never be something we don't want to share with at least the number of subscribers at any given point. So what ever you post, remember you are sharing it with your closest 40,000 +/- friends. :-)

Dave, thanks for reversing the change. l have been silent on this, but when I did a google, I found my stuff plastered all over!!! I was shocked....

I do appreciate your willingness to listen to us and make adjustments... now about those co-ops.. LOL

I'm sorry for my harsh words as well. I have posted pictures of my children and written some very personal things here and did not want the whole world to have access to them. I guess I shouldn't be so open, but that's my nature.

Thanks Dave! I know some people, including me, may have felt a false sense of security thinking the *whole* world couldn't see everything we do here. Maybe we are a bit naive, but we feel somewhat protected and that is especially so in the Parking Lot forum. I guess it is sort of like sitting on the smoking or non-smoking side in a restaurant. Are you any more protected?? No! But, you don't have people blowing it right at you. LOL I think we were all sitting on the 'non-smoking' side. :)

Thanks Dave!

Well, I haven't been able to edit any of my posts on any threads. Maybe soon enough Dave can fix this too.

kathy

I don't think the parking lot or prayer request forum were EVER open for view. A few forums like that have always been subscriber only and that shouldn't have changed (I don't think it did)

dave