Just an idea for others to consider

[agate]

Moved from another thread:

Let me float this idea for everyone to think about: There are message boards where Invisible Mode isn't possible. So everyone who shows up as being online in real time is actually everyone who is there. And the user names are shown at the bottom of every forum page, readily available for all to see. This creates far more transparency and probably cuts down on stalking considerably. It also cuts down on lurking. It's saying to everyone who comes here that they can't just sneak in here to see what we're up to. Their presence will be known to all.

I'm highly in favor of this myself and it just might be possible to persuade the admins here to change the settings accordingly. Do people here want that policy?

Maybe I should have been clearer. I have nothing to do with setting any policy here. In fact I've complained more than once that there is entirely too much agate on this board. It looks as if I'm trying to take over.

What I had in mind with this post about a policy change was that if people thought this change might be worth trying, we could ask the admins if it can be done and see if they're willing to do it. It may be just a matter of changing a setting.

You'd come to any forum page here and always know exactly who is here because who's online would show up at the bottom of the page. Every registered BrainTalk user who is viewing here would show up with his/her user name displayed there. Years ago I think BrainTalk had this but I'm not sure.

The big change, which I don't think BrainTalk has ever had, would be ending the "invisible mode" that is now an option for anyone. That would make it impossible for anyone to lurk. Nobody would have to post, ever, just as now, but anyone viewing the content here would be present for anyone else to see. So you could lurk (be present without posting) as much as you wanted but anyone could see that you're here.
'
Some message boards work like this, and it seems to be a good way of cutting down on some problems..

I was just wondering if anyone has any thoughts. Whether or not this could happen would be up to the admins, of course.

[Mike Weins]

Not going to happen. Members have always and will always be allowed to be invisible to other members via the who's online list. I have never been on a forum that did not allow it's members to be invisible if they wanted to be. I'm not saying they don't exist but they are the rare exception.

[agate]

Thank you for the prompt feedback. It was just a thought.

[Virginia]

I thought I remembered from way back that you could look at the bottom of the page and see who was on line. I guess a person could have their name not show up. I didn't care if mine did so I didn't pay much attention, besides we had so much going on I hardly ever looked to see who was online.

[agate]

Same here. Often there were so many people here that it would have been hard to read all of those usernames. But there have been occasional problems with members who felt that they were being stalked or tracked, and sometimes they may have been right about that. It would be a little harder to stalk someone if invisibility weren't possible but things seem to be ticking along OK as they are, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

And a strong case can be made in favor of allowing the invisible mode.

[houghchrst]

I had mine set so that you couldn't see if I was online. Don't know if that still works. I dont' have a problem with lurkers. I feel like at least they are seeking help. Well, except the spammers but they have not been a huge problem in a while.

[agate]

Chris, I can't recall ever noticing that you were listed in the Who's Online section but you might want to check that setting if you want to make sure.

I don't mind lurkers either but there are those who do mind.

The spammers--ah yes. If somebody went through the long list of registered users and weeded out each one that was definitely a spammer, that would at least improve that situation. Someone would have to care enough about this board to want to take the time, and the fact is that there are so few of us left here that I'm afraid that won't happen.

So for now it's just this small group, doing what we can to cheer each other up. But it's far better than being all alone while coping with neurological problems. And this place has a long history. We have experience going for us.

[Virginia]

I don't have a problem with lurkers either. After all, we were probably all lurkers, for at least a while, before we became members.

Yea, spammers are different, but doubt that there is much to be done about that.

[agate]

I'm often lurking if lurking means coming in here and reading without saying anything, even doing that over a long time. I'm pretty sure everyone does that.

And I don't care who knows that I'm lurking.

But people who are more uneasy about being stalked by someone feel very differently. I have an impression that stalking does occur--here and everywhere where there is communication on the Internet. I'm not sure what constitutes "stalking" though. To me it would mean tracking someone with a malicious intent--to cause harm to that person. Just following them on the Internet might be just curiosity, mightn't it?

There are sometimes ways of finding out who is looking at your page--I think on LinkedIn? Maybe on some other sites?

In the situation flatcap was describing, I think there may have been a problem with two IP addresses getting confused. I don't know if that's possible but years ago IP addresses often came into any discussion about tracking or stalking.

[Virginia]

There is something about finding a person through their IP address, but I can't imagine how a person finds another person's IP address. Of course we all know I am not well versed on such things.

[agate]

I think the admins would have access to everyone's IP address. If one person's IP address happened to be the same as another 's (supposedly not possible) or very similar in some way, my guess is that when one person logged on here, the other person would show up as logged on at the same time (even though that person wasn't logged on).

I wonder if that could happen, say, if a user was on one continent and another user was on another continent--as seems to have happened in the instance I mentioned?

I don't know much at all about IP addresses either, Virginia!