GUESTS - the solution.

by **Chris** » 14 Aug 2007, 22:58

The Guests David wonders about are mainly members who don't bother to log on unless there is something they want to post. I had made it so that anyone could read the posts, but only those registered could write.

As an experiment I have altered things so that only those registered can read the posts. Is this preferable?

by **johnstoate** » 15 Aug 2007, 00:41

Well, it's different, but one wonders how many log on to see what's wrong with the board.

by **Professor Eek** » 15 Aug 2007, 00:51

How cliquey can we get ....

'What is the board for?' and 'Why do we use it?' might be more pertinent questions

I use this board so I can 'chat' to my colleagues and discuss current issues within the industry. I don't know what a 'a current' issue is until it's been posted (unless I've initiated it) but this is where get my fuel to help me continue in the quite solitary job I've chosen.

I don't agree with everything posted on this board, I don't agree with the attitudes and postings of many who type here - but I don't think we should become exclusive.

Read through previous postings and you'll see the 'don't come ere - there be dragins' posts all over the place.

Let's try and remain open - and (gasp! shock! horror!) friendly

by **CvdC** » 15 Aug 2007, 01:27

I think that most of the discussion on this board has always been very "in house".
Mostly the people are committed participants. Only very ocaisionally a person from the real world would come on with a specific query.

I have always been of the opinion that Chris could divide the whole web site into two: A public site and a site for the serious Punch aficionado.

The former would offer general information and access to find performers for bookings. It could also be for general enquiries and questions about Punch.
The latter would be password protected, paid for by subscription and include the sort of information committed Punch performers and historians would be interested in, including this message board (and how to make swazzles).

When a subscriber logs onto the board they would automatically be identified and so there could be no anymous lurking. Also the beauty of this scheme is that the users who make the most of the site would help contribute to its existance.

by **CharlesTaylor** » 15 Aug 2007, 07:01

Gosh, I must admit that sometimes I may be a lurker. But it's because I have nothing relevant or worthwhile to contribute. Then something or someone pushes a button and I explode into verbosity!

I love this forum just the way it is! Chris S. has done fantastically setting it up. It is also very convenient. Compare it to Pupcrit in which people respond to articles they cut and paste and one must read the same thing over and over. Also, this site is really more germain to Punch!

I am suddenly aware of society in general, NOT refering to anyone on this site, seem to be lacking in a sense of civiliity. Pupcrit had quite a tirade recently, and even teachers in my association seem to be "loosing it" which is extroadinary. Perhaps the stress and tensions of our modern life with the influence of the mass media, movies and television are encouraging this.

I remember about forty years ago there was a philosophy to NOT keep pent up emotions. It was considered and promoted healthy to "let it out!" Well, I did a few times and didn't like the feeling. I found emotions can get the best of me and then I suffered from guilt and regret. "Oh, if I could just take back those words!" became my mantra for a while.

Today, I believe it is healthy to disagree, debate and keep an open mind as long as we are civil. But we are human so tolerance, understanding, forgiveness of others and even forgiveness of oneself will get us through! Life is a classroom of learning until death.

Now don't you prefer that sometimes it's best to let lurkers just stay in their hidden domain? It takes a lot of different characters (all kinds) to make the world go around.

Charles

by **johnstoate** » 15 Aug 2007, 11:42

Having now given a little thought to the matter. My feeling is that much of the time, the 'guests' are probably just that. Given the size of the web, and the number of 'surfers' world-wide coupled with the quality of this site, It is sad that there are only in the 'tens' of guests at any one time. "Hidden' is a different kettle of fish -and possibly more sinister. Chris, you should, perhaps put up for parliament, they are adept at fixing things that aren't broken! - Whilst I agree with the point that we should, perhaps, have some form of private forum where 'trade secrets' could be discussed,(Viz 'Parler' - why have a private method of conversation for professional purposes if you are then going to publish a translation for the benefit of the very people it is designed to exclude?) I do not think that this is the place for it. We have enough of a 'nanny' state already, this is a forum for freedom of speech, and should be open to all. By all means restrict the posting facility to exclude the underside of the web, but ours is an insular profession already. By restricting viewing access it becomes a private club, and I still plead Groucho Marx!! - Possibly we should exercise a bit of democracy and have a poll on the views of all our fraternity? Rather than knee-jerk to the possible paranoia of a few. This is an excellent site, and a credit to Chris. - Please, let's keep it that way!

by **Professor Eek** » 15 Aug 2007, 11:51

Better put than my diatribe above Mr Stoate

by **Chris** » 15 Aug 2007, 12:27

How cliquey can we get ....

I note that Eek is bristling again at the board not being run how he wants it. And again he misunderstands the situation.

The only difference this makes is that visitors to the board must expose their name or pseudonym if they wish to read or write on the board. Hardly cliquey. More like good manners I would have thought.

And John Stoate's comments baffle me, although I did get the jibe about fixing things that aren't broken. I haven't fixed anything - I have simply, out of interest, shown a different form of presentation. No big deal.

Anyway if it is too much trouble to expect people to logon when they visit (or if even this is too much effort then they can logon once and choose to "Save" their username and password) then I can quite easily put things back how they were. It makes absolutely no difference to me - I know who the guests are.

I said this was an experiment and invited you to state your preference - but please don't get all hot and bothered about imagined changes.

<p>

by **Andrew Clarkson** » 15 Aug 2007, 13:36

I currently have no home internet access, but do have limited access via my mobile. I often come on as guest via my mobile (as I am now, typing predictive text), simple because I've bookmarked Punch Chat for the sake of speed. Chris has now provided a soloution to my laziness as I browse this excellent site. Keep up the good work. Many thanks!

by **Trev** » 15 Aug 2007, 16:31

With all due respect and no-prejudice,

Are the guest/lurkers actually a problem? Even my own previous comment about those who hit and run was just voicing an opinion of mild frustration, not calling for any real action.

Obviously it isn't a problem for those of us who are members as we'll probably log on anyway but is there a risk that guests might think it is an exclusive board and not join us, or fail to find information they might require?

As Chris says, this is an experiment, so please understand this is a simple question out of curiosity

by **Professor Eek** » 15 Aug 2007, 17:10

No bristles

No misunderstanding (on my part anyhar)

All is well - a question was asked - I gave an opinion - I gave the 'wrong' opinion (?) - I am keel hauled and publicy flogged again

So to rephrase myself - If you exclude people - you become a clique

I would be against 'hiding' the message board or making it any harder for anyone to get to see it.

I hope this is clearer

Mr Tiggywinkle

by **ruby** » 15 Aug 2007, 17:18

Well the joy of this computer is that it has s borrowable log in that comes up automatically. Does this mean I have to get my own in order to read? There is a good half dozen of us,if thats the case.
Mike Not Ruby(not spanish,not crazy and not beautiful.)

by **johnstoate** » 15 Aug 2007, 17:37

Chris, your comments have been duly noted, - I may be under a misaprehension here, _ As I understand it, one now has to log on in order to read the board, previously this was not the case, and therefore actually being listed as a user was only needed to post replies etc. Therefore 'guests' who did not choose to register could still follow the threads anonymously, a practice which I can see no harm in. This is, I suspect Eek's point, - That one now must be registered to view the full board, thereby creating a 'clique' - Or have I misunderstood (again)?

by **digger** » 15 Aug 2007, 20:48

These guests that we are concerned about . If its the 50 or so that visited just before three in the morning on two Friday mornings. ... Chinese students Not Croatian Mafia.

by **Chris** » 15 Aug 2007, 23:21

If you would like to read my original posting you will see that I said that most of the guests were registered members who hadn't bothered to log in. I know this for a fact because the admin panel shows this. There are not dozens of the general public being deprived of our wisdom.

Nobody is being excluded. Registered members have only to log in to read, write or whatever. New visitors will need to email me first - but that is because of the porn and spam merchants which is anoher thing altogether.

Nothing I have done has created a clique.

But of course we are a clique by nature of our common interest: Punch.

CLIQUE: a narrow circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes

But surely that is what PunchandJudy.com is all about?

Incidently there's nothing sinister about Hidden viewers either. It is simply someone registered, who has logged out.

<p>

GUESTS - the solution.

GUESTS - the solution.

puzzled

Who is online