I have a piece of information that might help someone out here and I want it only viewable to certain AAC members the provide input and keep the forum going ...

Is this possible??

 

Why do you think, that we might think that was a good idea?
Private message those people and see what they think.
Personally I think it is a terrible idea.

 

I think you can do what you want to do in the open forum. You can of course articulate any terms and conditions that suit your fancy.

How about one that says you have to write a coherent paragraph with correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation. That would eliminate all the textspeak posters at any rate.

 

We are very much open source, warts and all.

 

The notion that some subset of the membership is more deserving, than others, of some "imagined" benefit is profoundly abhorrent to me.

 

Regardless of whether or not it's a good idea, it is possible if you have a blog here on AAC. When you create a blog entry, you can select a specific list of people to be the only members allowed to view it.

 

Why don't you just "open a conversation" with your intended group of members, and do not check the box, "Allow anyone in the conversation to invite others"??

Does this not accomplish what you want??

 

I would like to be part of such a conversation.

 

I have a piece of information that might help someone out here and I want it only viewable to certain AAC members the provide input and keep the forum going ...

Is this possible??

With all due respect - I believe you missaprehend the underlying premise of these fora -- To wit: the benefit of (appropriate) content very often extends beyond the immediate parties to the discussion, and, indeed, the 'active kernel' of the fora --- In the case of personal, proprietary or otherwise inappropriately published correspondence - the private conversation feature or email are better choices...

With constructive intent
HP

 

...To wit: the benefit of (appropriate) content very often extends beyond the immediate parties to the discussion, and, indeed, the 'active kernel' of the for a...
HP

Per HP's comment, I just noticed this thread today - lots of viewers over the past year. I don't know who it helped, who wasted their time and who it may have confused but a lot of people looked without commenting and it is still active.

 

Per HP's comment, I just noticed this thread today - lots of viewers over the past year. I don't know who it helped, who wasted their time and who it may have confused but a lot of people looked without commenting and it is still active.

Not having read that thread yet, but if it helped the TS, chances are, and per the Homework Rules, it is suggested they review relevant threads prior to asking their question. If they find out what they are seeking from a previous thread, more power to them.

As far as this thread starter's comments. They can private message the person who they "can help".

 

Not having read that thread yet, but if it helped the TS, chances are, and per the Homework Rules, it is suggested they review relevant threads prior to asking their question. If they find out what they are seeking from a previous thread, more power to them.

As far as this thread starter's comments. They can private message the person who they "can help".

Thank you?
I was just a coincidence that I noticed all the views and then read HP's post. Read mine again, no opinion associated - just an observation. If you want to read more into it, that's up to you.

 

Thank you.

I thought it was quite observant of you to notice the age of the thread, the number of posts and the number of views.

I don't think a post can maintain currency in a thread by views alone. To maintain a spot in currency, there has to be current postings. Necroposting is alive and well with respect to old threads.

It's just another example of the internet culture. Very high views, very low postings.

 

It's just another example of the internet culture. Very high views, very low postings.

That said and agreed -- It seems a 'given' that the thread is edifying (or, at very least, interesting) to some fraction of its 'mute' viewers - While, inarguably, participation/feedback is ideal -- I feel it is not absolutely necessary where education is the aim -- IOW: There's plenty of room for lurkers too!

Best regards
HP

 

Thank you.

I thought it was quite observant of you to notice the age of the thread, the number of posts and the number of views.

I don't think a post can maintain currency in a thread by views alone. To maintain a spot in currency, there has to be current postings. Necroposting is alive and well with respect to old threads.

It's just another example of the internet culture. Very high views, very low postings.

And the most interesting thing about that thread is that it was not, in my view, necroposted. The OP came back to finish his project.

 

I see some cases where members drag up an old thread and post a suggestion or an answer to a question that is old, and perhaps not of interest to the OP. Likewise, I see cases where someone reads an old thread, and asks a question about it. I don't see what harm is done in either case. To the contrary, someone (perhaps even the OP) may be helped by a even a tardy reply. If it's bad form to add to an old thread, what is the purpose of leaving the threads available? If it's interesting/valuable enough to be saved, and read, then surely it's interesting/valuable enough to add to.

I think someone just cooked up the term "necroposting," it sounded clever, so some like to say/type it.

 

I see some cases where members drag up an old thread and post a suggestion or an answer to a question that is old, and perhaps not of interest to the OP. Likewise, I see cases where someone reads an old thread, and asks a question about it. I don't see what harm is done in either case. To the contrary, someone (perhaps even the OP) may be helped by a even a tardy reply. If it's bad form to add to an old thread, what is the purpose of leaving the threads available? If it's interesting/valuable enough to be saved, and read, then surely it's interesting/valuable enough to add to.

I think someone just cooked up the term "necroposting," it sounded clever, so some like to say/type it.

I tend to agree! -- So long as the 'necroposter' reads the thread through prior to posting (so as to avert redundancy) I see it as a constructive action! -- That said; 'Rules is rules'...

Best regards
HP

 

One difference between starting a new thread and necroposting is the difficulty in determining what has been said. Even the necroposter probably has not read every post in the thread. Most important, people responding will not do that either. Having a new thread keeps it clean and easy for others to follow. At least then, one knows who the thread starter is.

John

 

If it's the length of threads that is the issue, then maybe there should be a limit on the number of posts instead of, or in addition to, the age of a thread. And while I'm on my soapbox, how old does a thread have to be to be considered "dead," and is the passing date based on the first post in the thread or the last? And maybe the site software experts could just program in an actuarially correct length of thread life, at the end of which would be its "expiry" date, after which no further posts would be allowed.

At least, that would make the issue of thread demise objective.

 

I don't think the length of a thread bothers people. I don't think the number of posters in a thread is an issue either. Views will always exceed posters by a significant margin as that is the internet culture ... especially in forums that are Q&A oriented.

I agree auto closing would be best.