an example of this is the tmx elmo thread.too many people can find out where to go and when witthout even being a member or posting..i just dont agree with this.

i get it and agree even tho im a NOOB

This goes well for one-time use coupon threads

IMHO I think its a good idea..

I think its a good idea, but a not for the whole forum, just for particular threads. I can't seem to log in on my mobile phone on here right now which would be the only downside to this though is that I wouldn't be able to view any threads that had this on...so while I think its a good idea, it could be a bad thing too.

Also, how would you impliment this feature? Such as, who controls whether you have to be a member or not and for what threads?

I understand the frustration level with "casual browsers". If the Administrator changes the forum preference to "yes, guests must either log in or register" to view the forums it will change the dynamics drastically. Currently the setting are "you must be logged in to post" which is pretty standard and keeps a certain level of accountability. The Administrator as well as the Moderators can then view and trace individuals by their IP address and such.

I hope the staff can confirm this for me as this board runs on a different platform than my "mini" board but you can't apply the "must log in to access" option to individual threads. I don't even think you can differentiate between individual forums within the website. I think this is a function under the general settings portion of the board itself that the Administrator controls. The forums are either open to all to view or closed to any that might be checking us out for the first time unless they register.

The consequences of allowing access to registered members only would include a much lower rate of new members (no more lurking for a while before you register) and would definitely impact the revenue stream provided by the store links throughout the board. Unless the "must register" option could be applied to the forums only.

Finally, and this is just my two cents, do you really want to belong to a "members only" board? I much more prefer the open access that promotes an inflow of fresh members, casual visitors and first time forum guests. Let's keep our "Lurkers" and persuade them by our example that they really do want to register and be a part of the Slick Deal community! :nod:

If it was a pay site, or something, I could understand the members only thing. However, it takes about 30 seconds to create an account for the forum... So any "you must be a member" threads would be easily seen, and all SD would have to show for it is an account with zero posts taking up space.

I did browse for maybe a month or so before joining- If I had been required to join sooner, I would of started posting sooner. We could get some good posts from the new members who contribute, but I think most of them would just create an account to see the threads.

If it was a pay site, or something, I could understand the members only thing. However, it takes about 30 seconds to create an account for the forum... So any "you must be a member" threads would be easily seen, and all SD would have to show for it is an account with zero posts taking up space.

I did browse for maybe a month or so before joining- If I had been required to join sooner, I would of started posting sooner. We could get some good posts from the new members who contribute, but I think most of them would just create an account to see the threads.

:iagree:

The result would be a ton of accounts that never get used, taking up all the good names. I was lucky enough to register with Kristin instead of Kristin128957824789137489613 :lmao:

:iagree:

The result would be a ton of accounts that never get used, taking up all the good names. I was lucky enough to register with Kristin instead of Kristin128957824789137489613 :lmao:
That's something I didn't even consider- the names. I search Melissa, no posts come up, yet I have to be Melissa2. Boo.

Making it "members only" to view the forums would keep a lot of people out, IMHO. I have had experiences in the past where I was looking for information on a given subject. I googled and got a list of sites to try. When I come across ones that forbid me to look at the forums, I close out and go to the next one. I don't want to sign up for every stinking forum just to look through and find out it isn't a place I want to sign up for in the first place. To me, this just means a gianormous amount of people might possibly sign up, but may never come back to use the account again.

not the whole forums...

an option to inclose text to those who are members, or even, those who replied to the thread....

such as

Another idea, I have also been on other forums where they have done this...
For certain threads/forum categories you can only access them after you have a certain number of posts in other general areas of the forums. This shows a commitment to the SD boards and would require a bit more effort (though not a ridiculous amount).

Not only would some preventative measure stop too many non-committed people from "stealing" and ruining deals... but it could also help prevent situations such as the IGoUGo situation where they came in and easily saw what was going on...

Another idea, I have also been on other forums where they have done this...
For certain threads/forum categories you can only access them after you have a certain number of posts in other general areas of the forums. This shows a commitment to the SD boards and would require a bit more effort (though not a ridiculous amount).

Not only would some preventative measure stop too many non-committed people from "stealing" and ruining deals... but it could also help prevent situations such as the IGoUGo situation where they came in and easily saw what was going on...

that would encourage people to post randomly just to reach the limit. don't get me wrong, i have joined boards where that was the case, and they had a "getting to know you" thread or something with the rules as the first post and a requirement of posting 1x so you at least had to scroll past it to fulfill the requirement. anything more than that is useless, imo

that would encourage people to post randomly just to reach the limit. don't get me wrong, i have joined boards where that was the case, and they had a "getting to know you" thread or something with the rules as the first post and a requirement of posting 1x so you at least had to scroll past it to fulfill the requirement. anything more than that is useless, imo


Looks like i made dupe of this thread, oh well... But That is what the mod report feature is, if SD users see none-sense bumping post report them... it easy... if you going to say something negative to an idea, give a way to improve it / fix it..

Looks like i made dupe of this thread, oh well... But That is what the mod report feature is, if SD users see none-sense bumping post report them... it easy... if you going to say something negative to an idea, give a way to improve it / fix it..

Its fine. Things come up like this alot and people just don't find it when they search. :hug:
Also sometimes people can find faults in an idea but don't have resolutions for them. Thats why creating a thread like this is not always bad. Its all about improvement. :nod:

At the very least i'd like to see Mr. Sd experiment with it..

At the very least i'd like to see Mr. Sd experiment with it..

He did. Trust me. This site has been open since 2003. Its not like they have never come across this before. :nod:

cry...

I think my option C of having say a REQ Post, or perhaps a REQ Reputation would work out nicely, would make members stop leeching and also make more signup and contribute, look right now their 1,000 members and 8000 guest? 8000 leachers... yay

cry...

I think my option C of having say a REQ Post, or perhaps a REQ Reputation would work out nicely, would make members stop leeching and also make more signup and contribute, look right now their 1,000 members and 8000 guest? 8000 leachers... yay

:iagree: and must become member first is a good idea. :worship:

Honestly I think in general this is a stupid idea. Not a personal attack on either of the OPs but it just seems like you'd be forcing people to do something they don't want to do . Personally I'd rather have people here who want to be here than people who join and bitch about everything.

The other thread was already locked because that isn't anything that's going to happen, so I don't see why you don't drop it.

The other thread was locked as it was a dupe, and i personally dont want people here who don't care enough about the community to simply join and contribute, but just come to leech. but thats me

The other thread was locked as it was a dupe, and i personally dont want people here who don't care enough about the community to simply join and contribute, but just come to leech. but thats me
When things are a repost, they ger merged. If someone says that that is not what SD is about and then locks the thread, it's for a reason.

I have tried to read as many posts as I could about this topic and do feel that there must be some process that can be agreed to that will allow for a better balance of members vs leecher/guest.

As of 11-19-06 @ 7:50PM EST 8780 (1540 members and 7240 guests), on 11-17-06 SD recorded the most users online ever at 13,064 which if the breakdown is consistent would mean that 10,765 guests a whopping 82% non members were here.

While it would seem there are business considerations, more visitors more revenue, but some of the questions that must be asked are, is it good revenue, sustainable revenue, growable revenue? There are much smarter people than I that can ans those questions

I would be what one would consider a Noob but learning. I also consider myself a member of the SD community.
It would seem that there are many members of the community that are very upset with the "guests" or leechers and some do not agree like

Super Moderator ARJUNSR from his post (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=133151&t=368500) stated "forums will be available to all. they're meant to be public".

Online forums just as in the traditional sense, are where visitors can post questions or make remarks on a given topic to be answered by their peers. A community is a group having common interests. Leechers/Guests are NEITHER for they do NOT have peers in the community else they would be members of said community.

I am highly surprised that there is no opportunity to compromise. Members of the SD community strike me as highly enthusiastic, energetic and have incredible ingenuity this can only make SD stronger and better. Failure to compromise will only serve to decay the core of SD. Would it not be better to just not have good revenue but GREAT revenue, revenue that GROWS beyond expectation, high QUALITY not fluff revenue? If this is all about the benjamins why are we not converting an estimated 10,765 visitors into members??

..........The other thread was already locked because that isn't anything that's going to happen, so I don't see why you don't drop it.

I do NOT agree with the post above for to paraphrase Carl Schurz, "Our Slick Deals right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

I for one will not sit back, from what some have indicated this post will either be deleted or I may be banned, I believe that is just paranoia.
So can we not work out a compromise, put together a group of the brain trust or are we just going to all discontent continue?

I value your opinions either in PM or posts, but to sit back and do nothing when I and so many others feel there is an issue is doing a disservice to the community I belong to.

Thank you for your time.
-g-

I already stated that it's not something I agree with... but have you ever considered that probably a good chunk of the visitors are members who do have sign in names but just aren't signed in?

I already stated that it's not something I agree with... but have you ever considered that probably a good chunk of the visitors are members who do have sign in names but just aren't signed in?
:nod: point taken, with me my computer automatically logs me in each time though. That is why I did not factor that to be a large portion of the lurkers.

-g-

I personally do not agree with making any posts or forums 'members only' and think that the site should remain as it is, open and available to all. After all, I bet that quite a few of our now-registered and contributing members lurked for quite a while before they decided to register. I know that I did. :)

That being said, if Mr SD does start considering allowing the 'OP can choose that only members can view this post/text' idea, then what about putting some kind of a short time-limit or expiration on the members-only lock? Say something like, if 'members only view' is chosen then for the first 12 hours only members can view the post, and then the 'hidden' post/text automatically becomes viewable to all, whether they're a registered member or not.

Something like this would give those members that feel they should have 'first dibs' on things posted here the first 12 hours to be able to view or get in on the deal first, and it would then also still allow non-members to see the post, albeit a few hours after it was posted.

I personally do not agree with making any posts or forums 'members only' and think that the site should remain as it is, open and available to all. After all, I bet that quite a few of our now-registered and contributing members lurked for quite a while before they decided to register. I know that I did. :)

That being said, if Mr SD does start considering allowing the 'OP can choose that only members can view this post/text' idea, then what about putting some kind of a short time-limit or expiration on the members-only lock? Say something like, if 'members only view' is chosen then for the first 12 hours only members can view the post, and then the 'hidden' post/text automatically becomes viewable to all, whether they're a registered member or not.

Something like this would give those members that feel they should have 'first dibs' on things posted here the first 12 hours to be able to view or get in on the deal first, and it would then also still allow non-members to see the post, albeit a few hours after it was posted.

Great idea :nod: . These are the types of thoughts that allow for compromise. There are answers I just think everyone gets locked into feeling that is should be their way or the highway.

An additional concept on your idea, I have seen some sites that will only allow you to see a portion, a "taste" so to speak. That could be also something as those that are "shy" should get to see and also see the value of membership, such as "first dibs", etc.

Thanks for your reply.
-g-

I think that some areas should be members-only. So many guests, they should contribute a little.

everyone should post important info and coveted codes in spoiler mode so only members can see the info. :nod:

everyone should post important info and coveted codes in spoiler mode so only members can see the info. :nod:
I like that plan much better than requiring people to sign up, hehe.

I like that plan much better than requiring people to sign up, hehe.

you and i should start the trend :teehee:

you and i should start the trend :teehee:
I think that means I'd have to leave the lounge. :coverlaf: