[Feedback] You can't search this forum.

Boston

Moderators can decide where they want to put this, but as it's a specific forum issue relating specifically to posters here, I decided to start the thread here.

Normal users cannot search this forum. It seems to be a throw back to the days when this was the men's health forum. If you're a moderator or a subscriber you probably never noticed, but the average user is blocked. So the question is, should search continue to be disabled on this forum?

My view: No, there seems to be little discussion of sensitive issues on this forum and it's purpose has shifted completely since it's foundation. Similar forums just as the ladies lounge are open.

discuss:

Dr Galen

your right Boston, I hadn't noticed this before.

I'm in agreement with you. I can think of no reason why search should be disabled either

smashey

Thanks for pointing this out Boston. I'll find out if there is a reason for it.

Fajitas!

I think it's similar enough to PI being unsearchable - It means if someone goes into your user history, they can't go searching any problems or health queries you have, or any answers to queries other folk have.

Personally, I like the fact that what's posted in here won't turn up in a search, not that I'd be planning on posting anything I wouldn't like searched.

Boston

Is that because the majority of postings seem to be lowbrow?

Dr Galen

Boston wrote: »

Is that because the majority of postings seem to be lowbrow?

are you talking about in general or specifically with reference to Fajitas

Nevyn

This forum started out as a mens health forum and to respect that and to make posters feel more comfortable posting searching was turned off the same way as it is in PI/RI.

Fajitas!

Boston wrote: »

Is that because the majority of postings seem to be lowbrow?

Do you actually think the majority of the postings on the forum are lowbrow, or are you trying to prove a point?

Either ways, I'd disagree.

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

This forum started out as a mens health forum and to respect that and to make posters feel more comfortable posting searching was turned off the same way as it is in PI/RI.

Boston wrote: »

It seems to be a throw back to the days when this was the men's health forum.

I acknowledge that point. However, the role of this forum has complete changed since it was created. At the time of posting the is only (perhaps two depending on definition) threads in the most recent 40 dealing with a health issue, and that thread was locked. There is an inconsistency here between this forum and other boards forum.

That is perfectly fine, I've argued for a long time that homogeneity is not a requirement. But the lack of search is a feature/bug of this forum, and a discussion of it's merits is appropriate. Perhaps more users would post about health issue if they knew they had this protection.

Fajitas! wrote: »

Do you actually think the majority of the postings on the forum are lowbrow, or are you trying to prove a point?

Either ways, I'd disagree.

What point might I be trying to prove? There is nothing inherently wrong with lowbrow. It would be hypocritical of me to chastise people for posting in such a manor while admitting I passively lurk on their forum. In my extremely subjective view, I've found the majority of posting I've read on this forum to be lowbrow when seen in light of my overall boards.ie user experience. Maybe your time is spent on After hours and TCN and as such you feel the postings here represent the height of intellectual discourse.

trout

Leaving the highbrow / lowbrow comments aside ... it would be nice if this thread could stay on topic ... the topic being should search be enabled or not.

My own view is to leave it off & update the charter to remind interested parties that search is disabled here & anonymous posting is supported.

star-pants

My 2c - I think not being able to search it is a good thing, it provides a safe area for guys to post about problems/dilemmas etc, looking for male responses (usually) and don't want a song and dance about it. They might not want to post in PI because they would prefer a male POV and they might feel more comfortable in the male community here.

So for those reasons I think it's good it's left as unsearchable.

Boston

star-pants wrote: »

My 2c - I think not being able to search it is a good thing, it provides a safe area for guys to post about problems/dilemmas etc, looking for male responses (usually) and don't want a song and dance about it. They might not want to post in PI because they would prefer a male POV and they might feel more comfortable in the male community here.

Fair enough. Now the issue is why arn't men availing of this feature. It is due to a lack of awareness?

I'd suggest that it is. A solution might be for the moderators of this forum to add a note to the availability of anonymous and search free posting to their signatures. Stickies do not work.

trout

Anonymous posting is mentioned in the charter, and gets aired occasionally through relevant threads.

Not everyone views or reads sigs ... I don't think they show up on mobile either.

I'm happy to amend the charter, as suggested.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Fair enough. Now the issue is why arn't men availing of this feature. It is due to a lack of awareness?

I'd suggest that it is. A solution might be for the moderators of this forum to add a note to the availability of anonymous and search free posting to their signatures. Stickies do not work.

Well I don't know about you, but I've seen a few threads where it would be male specific looking for advice, there's one on the front page right now about a gentlemans ... manhood.
Or I've seen the guys asking each other about what they think of a relationship situation etc. They want a male perspective, not a PI/RI one.

As regarding adding that to their sigs, it's up to them really. And, if people don't read stickies, or announcements in big shiny letters, why would the read sigs? A lot of people have sigs turned off, especially new posters (I can't recall if the default is off, but I've seen people posting in feedback/newbies etc asking why can't they see sigs)
edit - darn you trouty you got there before me :P

Boston

trout wrote: »

Anonymous posting is mentioned in the charter, and gets aired occasionally through relevant threads.

Not everyone views or reads sigs ... I don't think they show up on mobile either.

I'm happy to amend the charter, as suggested.

The charter thread has 1,845 since the creation of the forum, how many people will read you change? Changing the charter will have no appreciable effect. It seems you want to keep the feature but have no real interest in informing people about it.

star-pants wrote: »

Well I don't know about you, but I've seen a few threads where it would be male specific looking for advice, there's one on the front page right now about a gentlemans ... manhood.
Or I've seen the guys asking each other about what they think of a relationship situation etc. They want a male perspective, not a PI/RI one.

How does disable search and annoymous posting equate to "a male perspective". The two arn't linked.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

The charter thread has 1,845 since the creation of the forum, how many people will read you change? Changing the charter will have no appreciable effect. It seems you want to keep the feature but have no real interest in informing people about it.

How does disable search and annoymous posting equate to "a male perspective". The two arn't linked.

To be fair Boston what do you want them to do? Reply to every new poster and say 'just FYI we have anon posting and no searching in here' ?
You said yourself no one reads stickies, we know very few read announcements, and the same could be said for sigs.

I didn't say it equated to a 'male perspective' - what I said was, PI/RI has anon posting etc, people are aware of that, but some chose not to avail of it because they didn't want the generic PI/RI responses, which would be of mixed gender responses. They wanted a more male perspective, so post in tGC, knowing it's safe to do so. So knowing that they can have essentially their own PI in tGC is what might make them post here instead of there.

trout

Boston wrote: »

The charter thread has 1,845 since the creation of the forum, how many people will read you change? Changing the charter will have no appreciable effect. It seems you want to keep the feature but have no real interest in informing people about it.

Other than signatures, what would you suggest?

Boston

trout wrote: »

Other than signatures, what would you suggest?

When a topic of a sensitive nature arises, reply to it reminding people the anonymous posting is allowed and that any post on this forum will not show up when a users post history is searched. Couple that with an announcement and charter update. Shouldn't take long for the message to get across. Some of this forum's moderators where not aware of these features and I'm sure of a large number of your regulars weren't either.

star-pants wrote: »

To be fair Boston what do you want them to do? Reply to every new poster and say 'just FYI we have anon posting and no searching in here' ?
You said yourself no one reads stickies, we know very few read announcements, and the same could be said for sigs.

Use it or loose it would be my argument. If nobody is availing of these features, then the default option should be not to restrict other users.

star-pants wrote: »

I didn't say it equated to a 'male perspective' - what I said was, PI/RI has anon posting etc, people are aware of that, but some chose not to avail of it because they didn't want the generic PI/RI responses, which would be of mixed gender responses. They wanted a more male perspective, so post in tGC, knowing it's safe to do so. So knowing that they can have essentially their own PI in tGC is what might make them post here instead of there.

But they don't post here. So obviously there's a failing somewhere.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

But they don't post here. So obviously there's a failing somewhere.

They do... they might not post unreg as they might feel a bit more secure here.

trout

Boston wrote: »

Use it or loose it would be my argument. If nobody is availing of these features, then the default option should be not to restrict other users.

Anonymous posting is not widely used, but it has been used in the past.

How does search / no search in this forum restrict other users?

To put the question another way, if search was enabled ... what would that do for you?

Keano

Only a small complaint from me...

"What do you wear on a night out?" threads shouldn't be kicked out to the fashion forum since most guys wouldn't typically go there.

Boston

star-pants wrote: »

They do... they might not post unreg as they might feel a bit more secure here.

Find 4 recent threads with anonymous posting.

trout wrote: »

Anonymous posting is not widely used, but it has been used in the past.

Exactly, in the past.

trout wrote: »

How does search / no search in this forum restrict other users?

To put the question another way, if search was enabled ... what would that do for you?

What do you use search for? The default option is to have it enabled, ergo, a good reason is needed for having it disabled. For what reason would you disable it and not inform people?

trout

Boston wrote: »

What do you use search for? The default option is to have it enabled, ergo, a good reason is needed for having it disabled. For what reason would you disable it and not inform people?

The default option in other forums may be to have search enabled ... not the the case here. I accept this is a legacy of the initial forum/stance ... and maybe it should be reviewed.

Can you expand on why you want search turned on? Is "you can search other forums" a compelling argument?

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Find 4 recent threads with anonymous posting.

I don't think you read my post - I said people do post in tGC instead of PI because they want a male perspective and they want safety, they might feel safe enough posting in tGC unreg (I believe my words were, they might not post unreg as they might feel a bit more secure here).

Boston

trout wrote: »

Can you expand on why you want search turned on? Is "you can search other forums" a compelling argument?

Compelling or not, can you offer a counter one. I didn't say I wanted it enabled merely that it should only be disabled for a good reason.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Find 4 recent threads with anonymous posting.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055808746

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055825263

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055818262

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055825329

Boston

Ok, so one in the last month. Do you feel that is a lot?

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Ok, so one in the last month. Do you feel that is a lot?

... are you not reading the dates on these?
3 are from February

Boston

Apparently it isn't march. So, do you feel there is sufficent use of these features to merit their contining existance.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Apparently it isn't march. So, do you feel there is sufficent use of these features to merit their contining existance.

Even if it was March now they would have been from 'last month'.
Anyway, well 3 in the space of 9 days says to me people are using it. tGC doesn't have a huge level of traffic so there's not going to be a lot a day.
It also shows that people are obviously aware of unreg posting if they're using it.

Boston

Obviously, orly? Were you aware of the search restriction.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Obviously, orly? Were you aware of the search restriction.

I said obviously aware of the unreg posting, not of the search restriction btw.

No I hadn't realised about the search myself, but I knew about unreg posting.

Boston

So there is a lack of awareness of these features?

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

So there is a lack of awareness of these features?

I think this was already established no?
It's been said people are unaware of the search restriction, I'd say quite a few were/are aware of unreg posting.

Again as trout has said, they'll update the charter but people don't read charters, nor announcements, nor stickies and probably not sigs.
Posting after every new person posts saying 'btw we have unreg and search disabled here' might just make them more uncomfortable, as if you're suggesting they *should* be going unreg.

Seen as how you appear to have a vested interest in the unreg/search function - what do you propose (other than what you have), to enlighten posters?

trout

Boston wrote: »

Compelling or not, can you offer a counter one. I didn't say I wanted it enabled merely that it should only be disabled for a good reason.

Using the same logic, search should only be enabled for good reason. You have yet to offer that reason.

I find it a little ironic that you would debate this, while holding the view that most posts in this forum, by your definition, are lowbrow.

What are your good, compelling reasons for enabling search?

Boston

star-pants wrote: »

Posting after every new person posts saying 'btw we have unreg and search disabled here' might just make them more uncomfortable, as if you're suggesting they *should* be going unreg.

No one bar you suggested this. reread my post.

Using the same logic, search should only be enabled for good reason. You have yet to offer that reason.

I find it a little ironic that you would debate this, while holding the view that most posts in this forum, by your definition, are lowbrow.

What are your good, compelling reasons for enabling search?

When looking for threads dealing with specific topic search would be usefull.

Incorrect use of irony btw.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

When a topic of a sensitive nature arises, reply to it reminding people the anonymous posting is allowed and that any post on this forum will not show up when a users post history is searched.

Boston wrote: »

No one bar you suggested this. reread my post.

Ok apologies it's not exactly what I said - but what you did say isn't far off it.

Tragedy

If search isn't re-enabled, TLL will ask to have search disabled for their forum.

So I support enabling the searching of TGC!

Will

Lets not bring other forums into this, this is talk about TGC not TLL. Thank you.

In the grand scale of things whether the forum is searchable or isn't doesn't really have a huge impact. Just means the search bar doesn't work, you can dig for threads yourself. Also the vbulletin search isn't that amazing either.

Couldn't care either way if it's re-instated or not as I see now huge impact with either choice.

star-pants

Tragedy wrote: »

If search isn't re-enabled, TLL will ask to have search disabled for their forum.

So I support enabling the searching of TGC!

To be fair the PI forum was being used as an analogy, a forum that has unreg posting/search disabled, sensitive topics etc. To explain why unreg posting / search is the way is it in here.
Using tLL as an analogy isn't quite the same. They're a forum in their own right, not connected to tGC, if they want to talk about changing search/unreg posting that's their business and shouldn't really be used as an argument for enabling search in tGC.

tbh

here's why I'd support search being enabled.

1: we all said when we made the transition that we wanted to help as much people as possible, and the best way to do that is by search. If someone is that worried about starting a thread, they can start one anonymously, like I did. I'm not exactly ecstatic that everyone knows I got a circumcision, but that's far outweighed by the fact that so many guys have thanked me for starting it.

2: People post on boards because they want a wide range of opinions. The wider, the better imo

3: If people are really sensitive, the size of the forum now means that restricting it to just tGCers isn't really a big advantage. There may have been less traffic in the old mens health, but nowadays a lot more people are browsing threads they notice in here, rather than coming here specifically. So I think the argument about the embarrassment factor is less relevant a factor than the potential gain from casting the net wider

4: if you're worried about people digging up "dirt" - if someone is snooping, they'll use "last 20 posts" rather than a general search term. I don't think there's much scope for damage in people searching specific terms - more than likely they are searching those terms because they need help themselves.

I know the way I wrote those points makes it look like a bit of a manifesto this isn't an issue that keeps me up at nights - I feel the same way as Will.

However, if you're asking should we or shouldn't we, then the four above would be why I'd say we should.

Boston

star-pants wrote: »

Ok apologies it's not exactly what I said - but what you did say isn't far off it.

Miles apart. Your suggestion would be extremely off putting and intimidating to new users. It's also a lot more work for moderators. Theres also no need for that level of interaction.

trout

Is it time for a poll?

1 - I want search to be enabled.
2 - I want search to remain restricted.
3 - Never noticed / Don't really care

Dr Galen

agreed. I was thinking of the same thing last night.

We could post a poll. and outline the knock-on effects of the decisions to posters in the forum, as have been discussed in this thread. That way, people are making an educated choice as such, about what they'd like to see in their forum.

star-pants

Boston wrote: »

Miles apart. Your suggestion would be extremely off putting and intimidating to new users. It's also a lot more work for moderators. Theres also no need for that level of interaction.

Actually mine wasn't a suggestion, it was used as an example of what not to do. Because you were saying the mods weren't willing to do anything to bring awareness. I was being sarcastic in the 'suggestion'.
Yours is still along the same lines, posting in threads where new people start or are posting in to remind them of the anon/search, which could still make them uncomfortable.

trout wrote: »

Is it time for a poll?

1 - I want search to be enabled.
2 - I want search to remain restricted.
3 - Never noticed / Don't really care

Good idea! Not to ask a stupid question, but I assume unreg posting would still be kept? (if search was enabled)

enda1

Seeing as how google caches everything anyway and the homepage has a "search Google.ie" widget on it, then search is not really blocked.

So not having the in-site search just makes things more awkward and is equivalent to a feature bug.

You can just use for example

circumcision "The Gentlemen's Club" site:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/

as a search request and you will search this forum (almost) exclusively.

trout

star-pants wrote: »

Good idea! Not to ask a stupid question, but I assume unreg posting would still be kept? (if search was enabled)

Unreg posting and search are not bound ... we can have one without the other.

It might not be widely used, but I think unregged posting has a purpose.

Boston

star-pants wrote: »

Actually mine wasn't a suggestion, it was used as an example of what not to do. Because you were saying the mods weren't willing to do anything to bring awareness. I was being sarcastic in the 'suggestion'.
Yours is still along the same lines, posting in threads where new people start or are posting in to remind them of the anon/search, which could still make them uncomfortable.

Oh, so you where contributing nothing to the thread. An you wondered why I said posts are lowbrow. :rolleyes:

star-pants

trout wrote: »

Unreg posting and search are not bound ... we can have one without the other.

It might not be widely used, but I think unregged posting has a purpose.

No I think the unreg should stay that's why I was checking.

Boston wrote: »

Oh, so you where contributing nothing to the thread. An you wondered why I said posts are lowbrow. :rolleyes:

Well if you didn't come in and look down your nose at the forum perhaps other people would have also contributed. I did contribute, I gave my opinion and merely pointed out (as you did) about people not reading stickies therefore why would they read sigs. You were saying they weren't doing enough and I was asking was that what you expected them to do? (giving sarcastic example)
If I was contributing nothing to the thread I'm sure I'd have been asked to leave.

Boston

star-pants wrote: »

Well if you didn't come in and look down your nose at the forum perhaps other people would have also contributed. I did contribute, I gave my opinion and merely pointed out (as you did) about people not reading stickies therefore why would they read sigs. You were saying they weren't doing enough and I was asking was that what you expected them to do? (giving sarcastic example)
If I was contributing nothing to the thread I'm sure I'd have been asked to leave.

You don't just get to troll when you feel like it. Theres a report post function, use it.

Boston

trout wrote: »

It might not be widely used, but I think unregged posting has a purpose.

So you're going to reenable search?