Adding "LOCATION" to a User's Profile

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
25,420
So you talk to a twelve year old the exact same way, in that same amount of detail, and expect the exact same level of knowledge, experience, and reasoning as a fifty year old? A while back we had someone asking about something (motors, I think) and the nature of the conversation changed drastically once it was discovered that the person asking the question was a sixth grader.

But you are still choosing to miss the point. You want to require people to jump through hoops in order to avoid disclosing information that YOU find convenient to have a small fraction of the time (the overwhelming majority of threads are NOT people asking what part to use). But if that's the standard, then why shouldn't people be required to jump through hoops to avoid disclosing information that someone else finds convenient to have some of the time?
The matter of age likely comes up once in a blue moon as a problem.
The problem of suggesting parts comes up much more often than that (at least for me).
My default mode is that the poster has only a limited knowledge of electronics, regardless of age, unless they show me otherwise.
But it was just a suggestion.
If you think clicking on a box to say you don't want to post your location is jumping through hoops, then you sense of proportion is way different than mine.
Obviously your are hung up on the privacy issue (why is this such a big frickin issue anyway?), and I'm not going to change your mind, and you're in control, so I'm out of the discussion. :rolleyes:
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
7,940
We're not asking for a mailing address. Or even a town, just a country or region. I may be naive or have missed it, but can't recall of a time that anyone has said, "oh, you live in (insert country), we won't help you".
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,148
The matter of age likely comes up once in a blue moon as a problem.
The problem of suggesting parts comes up much more often than that (at least for me).
My default mode is that the poster has only a limited knowledge of electronics, regardless of age, unless they show me otherwise.
But it was just a suggestion.
If you think clicking on a box to say you don't want to post your location is jumping through hoops, then you sense of proportion is way different than mine.
Obviously your are hung up on the privacy issue (why is this such a big frickin issue anyway?), and I'm not going to change your mind, and you're in control, so I'm out of the discussion. :rolleyes:
I'm not the one who's hung up on it. You might recall a thread where I solicited input about how members felt about AAC sending out an happy birthday e-mail to members on their birthday. The response was unanimously negative with a significant amount of complaining about privacy violations (despite the fact that the subject was about sending a private e-mail). The tone was very much that AAC should only have minimal information about the member and that anything more should be opt-in, not opt-out. So I am NOT imposing MY view at all (and whether it is my view or not, I am not imposing anything one way or another -- even if I wanted to, I don't have the power to do so since I am not an administrator). I am representing the views, as I understand them, of the membership (based on an admittedly small and non-representative sample, but it's all I have to work with -- though that small sample probably represents a large fraction of posts in the last year or so).

In that other thread, you yourself said that you did not want AAC to send you an e-mail on your birthday. Would you have any objections if AAC, by default, sent you such an e-mail provided that you could go into your profile and check a box to disable it? Or would you prefer that, by default, AAC not send such e-mails unless you go into your profile and check a box to enable it?

And please keep in mind that age is just being used as an example. If you must, replace it with InformationX.

Also, completely aside from the issue of whether location info should be required, opt-in, or opt-out, if location is so valuable when you make a response, then why aren't you aware that no location was given when you make the response? Would you really have made a different recommendation if you knew the person was in Yugoslavia? Do you really know what parts are and are not available in all the different parts of the world to a sufficient degree that having that information is going to really factor in to your initial response as to what part to use?
 

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
25,420
Frankly, if I saw a bunch of "op out" boxes when I set up my account asking me what I want posted or whether I want an email on my birthday, I wouldn't consider it a big deal. Not that hard to check a box. Obviously yourself and others feel differently.

And yes, I would answer differently if I knew that the poster was from a country that didn't have ready access to some of the common electronic suppliers, such as some of the third-world countries.

But you can give it a rest. I'm obviously in the minority and I can work with the status quo.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,148
You would seem to be the one that isn't willing to let it rest.

What scenario did I post in which posting country information is bad?

I'm saying that people here get all worked up about various pieces of private information being made public -- or even information being used in non-essential ways even if there is no public disclosure involved. So why should any non-essential personal information be made public on a non-opt-in basis just because a handful of members would find it useful?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
You would seem to be the one that isn't willing to let it rest.
Yes, but it have integrity. I say I'm hung up on it and act as though I'm hung up on it. You do the opposite - claim you're not hung up on it and don't let it go. What is the point in that behavior? I wish integrity would be taught in schools.

Also, Reference the quoted phrase in Post 23 or your actual first sentence in post 22. Do you live in some sort of fantasy land or are you smoking... Never mind, I see it now. Colorado.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,148
Yes, but it have integrity. I say I'm hung up on it and act as though I'm hung up on it. You do the opposite - claim you're not hung up on it and don't let it go. What is the point in that behavior? I wish integrity would be taught in schools.

Also, Reference the quoted phrase in Post 23 or your actual first sentence in post 22. Do you live in some sort of fantasy land or are you smoking... Never mind, I see it now. Colorado.
This is rich -- YOU post to a thread that has gone dormant, challenge someone, and then when that person responds to your challenge accuse THEM of not letting it go.

My actual first sentence in Post 22? Are you kidding?

Uh, for the reading impaired: the quoted phrase in Post 23 was not made by me, nor did I have anything to do with Post #22. Why are you trying to attribute scenarios presented by others to me? What was that about integrity?

You stated that I posted stupid and nonsensical scenarios where posting country information was bad and I ask again, where did I do this?

Since you admit you can't leave it be, why can't you answer a seemingly simple question: Given that a very vocal and significant fraction of the active membership is very sensitive about non-essential personal information being made publicly available, why should any non-essential personal information be made public on a non-opt-in basis just because a handful of members would find it useful?

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the difference between being personally hung up on something and being willing to represent the expressed opinion of an important group of others. But I have no control over that. You might ponder that if I was so hung up on not making country information available, then why do I not only make my country information available, but also my state and my city (a city with a population of less than 200 people, no less).
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
This is rich -- YOU post to a thread that has gone dormant, challenge someone, and then when that person responds to your challenge accuse THEM of not letting it go.

My actual first sentence in Post 22? Are you kidding?

Uh, for the reading impaired: the quoted phrase in Post 23 was not made by me, nor did I have anything to do with Post #22. Why are you trying to attribute scenarios presented by others to me? What was that about integrity?

You stated that I posted stupid and nonsensical scenarios where posting country information was bad and I ask again, where did I do this?

Since you admit you can't leave it be, why can't you answer a seemingly simple question: Given that a very vocal and significant fraction of the active membership is very sensitive about non-essential personal information being made publicly available, why should any non-essential personal information be made public on a non-opt-in basis just because a handful of members would find it useful?

I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the difference between being personally hung up on something and being willing to represent the expressed opinion of an important group of others. But I have no control over that. You might ponder that if I was so hung up on not making country information available, then why do I not only make my country information available, but also my state and my city (a city with a population of less than 200 people, no less).
You are just crying because you have the nonsensical assumption that members didn't want a machine to wish them Happy Birthday for privacy reasons. That is not true, they just think your idea to have a machine wish them happy birthday is STUPID. Read that thread again, people were trying not to hurt your feelings so they defaulted to, (Best Jon Lovett's impression), yeah, yeah, that's the ticket - I don't want a machine to wish me happy birthday because of, because of, yeah, privacy! Yeah, privacy, that's the ticket! (then under our collective breadths, well actually because it is stupid).

So, read that birthday thread again - it might be hard to read it without bias since you are apparently still bitter and in denial about the real reason nobody wanted a birthday with.

So, assuming people didn't want a birthday wish from a machine, why are you the only one who keeps chanting privacy and no one else is joining you on this country of origin topic?
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,148
And you are still laboring under this impression that I WANTED to add a birthday wish -- if that were true, then why did I point out the cons more so than I did the pros right up front? Answer: Because I saw more cons than pros. As I stated then, I was merely soliciting input regarding something that is commonly done on other forums. You piss and moan when something is done without asking for member input, and then you piss and moan when member input is asked for.

And I can't help but notice that you still won't answer a simple question.

Acknowledging that you are highly unlikely to ever answer it, but rather just seem to have resurrected the thread for the purpose of pissing and moaning, tell you what -- you get the last word and then, unless you object, I will close the thread without responding.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
but rather just seem to have resurrected the thread for the purpose of pissing and moaning,
So, threads are dead and are considered "resurrected" if they sit idle for 9 days now? Who changed that rule?

And your wrong, I only make my first post to this thread today so I could let you and any other rule maker that your half-assed arguments against a great suggestion by @SLK001 were just that, half assed.

Why would you close @SLK001 thread, has anything been resolved or explained to him?
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,148
You bitch about me not letting it go, then when I let it go and stop responding to you so that it can drop, you bitch because I'm AM letting it go. Make up your damn mind!

Where did I say that it was dead? I said that it had gone dormant (I specifically chose NOT to say it was dead). Now, I'm not going to respond to you any more unless and until YOU can be bothered to answer a very simple question that was asked more than once.

Prediction -- instead of answering the question, you'll start in on the definition of "dormant" versus "dead" so that you can continue to avoid answering the question. But that's fine by me.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,164
There are very good reasons not to do this, including risking peoples safety in some cases. This trumps convenience.

I mentioned this in my earlier posts here. I shall not repeat them again.
 

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
25,420
There are very good reasons not to do this, including risking peoples safety in some cases. This trumps convenience.

I mentioned this in my earlier posts here. I shall not repeat them again.
But everyone seems to be circling the point (I feel like I'm in a political debate here). :rolleyes:
It's not whether posting a location is dangerous to some people or not, it's whether they should be required to op out of posting their location when joining the forum (instead of not posting their location out of laziness).
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
26,148
But everyone seems to be circling the point (I feel like I'm in a political debate here). :rolleyes:
It's not whether posting a location is dangerous to some people or not, it's whether they should be required to op out of posting their location when joining the forum (instead of not posting their location out of laziness).
I don't think I am circling the point -- I have asked a very simple question which no one will answer: Why should any non-essential personal information be made public on a non-opt-in basis just because a handful of members would find it useful? Or, put another way, why should they be required to opt-out of giving you information that you want to have instead of the burden being on you to convince them to opt-in to giving it to you? Right in line with that is, if you succeed in requiring everyone to opt out of giving you the information YOU want, why should others be prevented from requiring YOU to opt-out of giving everyone else whatever information they want?
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,012
I don't think I am circling the point -- I have asked a very simple question which no one will answer: Why should any non-essential personal information be made public on a non-opt-in basis just because a handful of members would find it useful? Or, put another way, why should they be required to opt-out of giving you information that you want to have instead of the burden being on you to convince them to opt-in to giving it to you? Right in line with that is, if you succeed in requiring everyone to opt out of giving you the information YOU want, why should others be prevented from requiring YOU to opt-out of giving everyone else whatever information they want?
So, in other words, you have a hope that you know how the current sign-up system works but since you haven't done it lately, you really have no idea how it works. Additionally, you also have an opinion of what should be released and not released but, since you are not at all observant or don't bother checking, you have no idea what this site does and does not release already.

Is that what your previous post says?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,164
We get a lot of posts from repressive governments. Do not judge the world from the USA or the UK. Need to know rules do apply here.
 
Top