New Face Lift!

It's still the same site, we've just changed the way it looks (a little). This upgrade allows us to take advantage of a number of new features and a little additional website speed.

Please note that for now all postings are moderated so don't be too worried if your comments do not appear on the forum immediately.

Just to head off the "there's something missing" comments, the old site is available for now on http://demo.arthur-ransome.org/ , if you can see there is something missing and tell me (fairly precisely) what it is, I'll copy it over asap. For the moment the only bits not available are the Plone walk-through tutorials which will become available as other work is completed.

In instructions on using the forum you have "hace" instead of "have" after society member - just a typo no doubt!

Indeed, and now fixed - many thanks!

You could always log in so we can see who to thank for the corrections ... ! 

Previously wrote:

Indeed, and now fixed - many thanks!

You could always log in so we can see who to thank for the corrections ... ! 

Sorry I could not make the log in work the first time, I think you have done a great job it makes the site much more interesting.

I hope the Forum gets a lot of use,

Robin

 

Previously Anonymous wrote:

In instructions on using the forum you have "hace" instead of "have" after society member - just a typo no doubt!

 

My opinion is that anybody posting to this Forum should include their full name, wether they are a Society member or not, and not post as Anonymous. Signed, until this policy is adopted, another Anonymous.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

My opinion is that anybody posting to this Forum should include their full name, wether they are a Society member or not, and not post as Anonymous. Signed, until this policy is adopted, another Anonymous.

I'd certainly agree that it more condusive to friendly camp fire debate (whether or not you're eating shark steak as you chat) if you know who you are chatting to on the other side of the fire. So I can only apologise again for inadvertantly posting anonymously a couple of days ago. Hopefully it won't happen again...

 

Mmm, "Anonymous" may note that his/her postings only appear after being "vetted" by an Administrator, if we discover the identity of a poster and they have a login, we can of course change the owner of the comment from Anonymous to the poster's real identity. The alternative way to run the Forum is to allow members (logged in) to post freely and anonymous not at all, however as this is a new facility the policy is to check everything before making it live. Hopefully if all goes well we can revert to a less administratively intensive policy in the future

Previously Geraint Lewis wrote:

Previously Anonymous wrote:

My opinion is that anybody posting to this Forum should include their full name, wether they are a Society member or not, and not post as Anonymous. Signed, until this policy is adopted, another Anonymous.

I'd certainly agree that it more condusive to friendly camp fire debate (whether or not you're eating shark steak as you chat) if you know who you are chatting to on the other side of the fire. So I can only apologise again for inadvertantly posting anonymously a couple of days ago. Hopefully it won't happen again...

 

 

Is that a 'yes' to my suggestion? Another Anonymous.

Previously Anonymous wrote:

Previously Geraint Lewis wrote:

Previously Anonymous wrote:

My opinion is that anybody posting to this Forum should include their full name, wether they are a Society member or not, and not post as Anonymous. Signed, until this policy is adopted, another Anonymous.

I'd certainly agree that it more condusive to friendly camp fire debate (whether or not you're eating shark steak as you chat) if you know who you are chatting to on the other side of the fire. So I can only apologise again for inadvertantly posting anonymously a couple of days ago. Hopefully it won't happen again...

 

 

Is that a 'yes' to my suggestion? Another Anonymous.

I know in my case anonymous came out on my first posts because I was not sure of the system and maybe too anxious to try this exciting new forum.
I see no reason why one if not a member one could put their name at the end of the post,
However there could well be some wishing not to be known then maybe a forum pseudonym  could be made available to each who do not wish to be recognized.
This seems to be often used on other boards. Robin

 

Mmm, the problem is there are people out there who would abuse the site, so there are only really two options;

a. Check every post by hand

b. Ensure only "known" / authenticated people (members) can post

I'm not convinced (a) is a scalable or long-term proposition, which really only leaves (b). Once upon a time many sites did allow for anonymous postings, but no more.

As for people wanting to post and remain anonymous, then yes, I'm sure there are people who would indeed like this facility. However, I'm not sure such anonymous postings are either desirable or in the best interests of the society, abuse of such a facility is almost inevitable (!)

Previously Robin Marshall wrote:

I know in my case anonymous came out on my first posts because I was not sure of the system and maybe too anxious to try this exciting new forum.
I see no reason why one if not a member one could put their name at the end of the post,
However there could well be some wishing not to be known then maybe a forum pseudonym  could be made available to each who do not wish to be recognized.
This seems to be often used on other boards. Robin

 

Does one have to be a member of the Arthur Ransome Society to post on this forum? experimentally Joy

Hi, technically yes .. however as we are currently checking each post by hand before it goes live we are able to take posts from anyone, i.e. anonymously.

The objective however is to limit postings to people who log in, and given login's are only issued to members, moderation will not be required as "we know who everyone is".

[one of the main issues with Forums is the potentially anonymous nature of potential posters and the associated liability of posting information from unknown sources]

So ultimately the answer to your question will be "yes" .. although if you have any thoughts on the subject and are not a member, now would be a good time to post! 

Previously Gareth Bult wrote:

Hi, technically yes .. however as we are currently checking each post by hand before it goes live we are able to take posts from anyone, i.e. anonymously.

The objective however is to limit postings to people who log in, and given login's are only issued to members, moderation will not be required as "we know who everyone is".

[one of the main issues with Forums is the potentially anonymous nature of potential posters and the associated liability of posting information from unknown sources]

So ultimately the answer to your question will be "yes" .. although if you have any thoughts on the subject and are not a member, now would be a good time to post! 

 

How about me *** moderated *** Can I post to this Board?

Well, you obviously didn't expect the removed content to be published so I does look rather like you posted something unacceptable in order to provoke a response.

I can't see that TARS members would want to read content posted for this reason, so in this instance the answer would be "no", and given you are not a member, the general response would also be "no".

(let alone the inflammatory nature of the content)

Previously Anonymous wrote:

How about me *** moderated *** Can I post to this Board?

 

I realise that the Forum is still developing but I would prefer it if both Tars and non-members of TARS were able to post. However I think people should register before they are able to post, and they should lose the right to post (permanently or temporarily) if they post irresponsibly.

However, since this site is funded by TARS presumably deciding whether to allow non-Tars to post would be a decision of the Board of Trustees or perhaps something that needed to be agreed at an IAGM.

My feeling is that many people who enjoy reading Ransome, and indeed people who are researching into Ransome's life and work, may for valid reasons not be members of TARS. It would be a pity if we were to lose their input.

Joy

From a purely technical perspective I believe it would be better if everyone who posts be affiliated to TARS in some way, purely as a means to verify who people are, and that people really are who they say they are.

Letting people register without checking their details is effectively letting people post anonymously, and if this is possible it means someone will always have to check on postings. If there is a reliable means of tracing posts back to individuals, then it's much easier to allow the UK legal system to regulate postings [mostly] (!)

How about (?!) a reduced rate membership aimed at people who're just interested in using the website / online resources who aren't really interested in other aspects of the society ?

A nominal fee for access to the site / forums would allow / pay for an exchange  in order to validate someone as a known entity without incurring any great cost? This could be done via PayPal (electronically) without introducing an admin hit on the membership secretary.

At the end of the day, why should members pay for facility for non-members? It doesn't seem unreasonable that all users pay "something" towards the costs?

(or is there an argument for saying that members should foot the bill for the rest of the World?)

I'm afraid there is a tendency to think that there is someone out ther with a big pot of money providing all these services free of charge.. not so, indeed I've seen a posting on "TARBoard" over the last couple of days suggesting that they raise a 4-figure annual sum to pay for a replacement for TARBoard. If such a service is so valuable to non-members, surely a couple of pounds per year is not an unreasonable ask?

That seems like a reasonable suggestion Gareth.

A small contribution would remove the temptation for flamers to go onto the forum.

One thing I like about the forum is that I am able to view recent posts on my Google page without going to the main web page which saves unneccesary trips,   Definately a plus I think.

Interesting thoughts, Gareth.

I agree that identifying those who post is very important and I do wonder about those seek to hide behind an internet facade. It may be necessary if one visits sites where data is likely to be harvested and used for spam. However I think TARS should identify themselves to each other. If I write an article for TARS, I do not use an alias.

You are quite right that nothing on the net is really for free. TarBoard, which you mentioned, was supported by by Lancaster Uni. As it's future is very much in doubt, if it can move to another platform there will be a cost either in accepting advertising, as with Yahoo, Google or MSN or people will have to pay.

I believe that Tarboard had a great strength is as much as it was not membership specific and it was more welcome to those overseas who did not see a value for money option in belonging to TARS. I would certain agree that a reduced price option limited membership for those overseas or who do not want to be full members of TARS ought to be an option. Many illuminating AR insights did come from non TARS contributors.

However one may take the view that by offering a free identified Forum posting option, one is actually advertising TARS and may gain more members. at least the Society would be spreading the word about AR.

Others will have more to offfer on this subject, I am sure.

Ok, but if you have a "free identified Forum", how are you going to organise the identification?

In addition, are we going to expect TARS volunteers to do the identifying?
(i.e. of non-members, so members pay and do extra work for non-paying non-members benefit?)

The Forums and the rest of the web site are already freely viewable with regards to spreading the word .. I'm not sure I see the argument that letting non-members post will spread the word more ..?

 

Previously Owen Roberts wrote:

However one may take the view that by offering a free identified Forum posting option, one is actually advertising TARS and may gain more members. at least the Society would be spreading the word about AR.

 

There are many internet Groups operating through Yahoo, MSN etc where a moderator (and there can be several) does the identification. This is done without cost (excapt in the moderators time). This is with a view to getting potnetial members posting as involment may lead to people joining TARS. It really goes down to how far the TARS management thinks that active use of rather than just viewing the much improved website will promote AR and encourage membership.

The last posting should be attributed to me. Baltic Pilot error - posting without logging on.

This may only work because I have an unusual first name, but I do prefer to be known by my first name only on this sort of site.

The fact that I also have an unusual surname too seems to mean I get more than my fair share of junk mail.

 

Sure, hence the ability to change your own name label in the preference section. Incidentally, have you tried clicking on one of the names in a post's heading section (underlined in yellow) ?

Like Robin, I also have a degree of difficulty in logging on each time.  It usually takes two or three tries before I can 'break through' the e-fence.  I would have used the 'reply to this' facility to post this message if it had worked, but I couldn't get a cursor to arrive.  Sorry to have to whinge, Gareth, but unreported problems don't get fixed, do they?

David

Mmm, the login facility we have running is live on ~ 130 other websites and whereas it's possible to "break" it, the facility is not known to be 'intermittent'.

If anyone else has a specific problem logging in and can supply details I will certainly investigate what might be causing it .. can you tell me which browser you are using?

[If you use the recommended browser (Firefox) it will save your username / password so all you ever need do it type the first letter of your user id then click 'Login']

>I couldn't get a cursor to arrive. 

This specifically will be a problem with your browser as it's not something the server has control of ...

Previously David Bamford wrote:

Like Robin, I also have a degree of difficulty in logging on each time.  It usually takes two or three tries before I can 'break through' the e-fence.  I would have used the 'reply to this' facility to post this message if it had worked, but I couldn't get a cursor to arrive.  Sorry to have to whinge, Gareth, but unreported problems don't get fixed, do they?

David