Inconsistent behaviour of boards when not logged in

[1nvest]

HYP sections can be viewed directly without having to log in. Other sections such as Investment Strategies and you have to log in. Even when you have a account its nice to be able to have a quick look at posts without logging in.

Why the difference - perhaps due to LF preferring to attract/focus upon just one particular type of investing?

Personally I'm a lazy browser, if I go to a new to me site and have to register/login to view its content more often I don't bother.

[gryffron]

Moderator Message:
The previous post spun off into a separate topic from Total Returns thread

That's an interesting point which I never realised. thanks for highlighting it. But you're right, some boards will only show the first post of each thread unless you are logged in, while others show everything. I don't recall any discussion of that as a "policy". It is certainly not TLF's intention to "push" any particular investing style. I know Polite Discussions is hidden unless you are logged on and specifically allow it, but otherwise I thought all boards were equal. Stooz, is this a bug or a "feature"?

Gryffron

[PinkDalek]

Stooz, is this a bug or a "feature"?

Is this something you raise with stooz directly in some way or other or does one wait until he sees your post?

[gryffron]

I have messaged him a link

[stooz]

Hi. That forum is less viewable indeed.
We were recently sued by a broker who didn't like his name used in a negative manner.
It's typical approach by some firms to attack all references so that any research on the firm remains positive only.
Whilst this is fine for a large operation it is not for me.
Even tmf got sick of the cases.
The lock is purely to remove all conversation from Google search and guests view.
Sorry if you feel that's a hindrance.

[PinkDalek]

That forum is less viewable indeed.

To clarify, are the replies on Investment Strategies the only previously open forum, as it were (to ignore Polite Discussions), that is now no longer available as described?

The OP suggested there were more by way of his “Other sections”, only citing Investment Strategies as an example.

Good luck on the other matters, if that is still ongoing.

[mc2fool]

Hi. That forum is less viewable indeed.
We were recently sued by a broker who didn't like his name used in a negative manner.
:
The lock is purely to remove all conversation from Google search and guests view.

A broker slagged off on the Investment Strategies board?

I see the Brokers and Share Dealing board is also must-login-to-view, and that makes sense given what you say. But people can slag off brokers on any board, so wouldn't it be better to limit such comments to the Brokers and Share Dealing board and allow all other boards to be/remain fully viewable?

Removing a board from Google search would be less of an issue if the phpBB search facility wasn't so crap, but it is and I know I'm not the only one who uses Google to search TLF.....

[1nvest]

Hi. That forum is less viewable indeed.
We were recently sued by a broker who didn't like his name used in a negative manner.
:
The lock is purely to remove all conversation from Google search and guests view.

A broker slagged off on the Investment Strategies board?

I see the Brokers and Share Dealing board is also must-login-to-view, and that makes sense given what you say. But people can slag off brokers on any board, so wouldn't it be better to limit such comments to the Brokers and Share Dealing board and allow all other boards to be/remain fully viewable?

Apparently not. Which suggests that the TLF would rather be a predominately HYP focused board. In having no interest in that I'll likely follow the others that also dislike restricted (log in based) viewing.

[stooz]

I'm tempted to remove the locks. It was a one jerk reaction of mine.
The only real restriction here is being logged in.

Also we are not hyp centric or plan to favour any one area.

[stooz]

Investment strategies unlocked again.
Please let me know who would like to handle the court cases?

[Lootman]

Please let me know who would like to handle the court cases?

I think you will have 5,235 witnesses testifying in favour of you.

[BusyBumbleBee]

In an earlier post gryffron said

Stooz, is this a bug or a "feature"? Gryffron

which made me recall my first computer manual for an APPLE II in the early 80's - yes, we had real paper manuals in those days

In the glossary was this entry

Feature : A bug as described by the marketing department

and there was a corresponding one for 'Feature'

I appreciate TLF's dilemma here, because an initiative I am leading has a similar problem. We provide a flow of important information and help to our members who are all Parish or Town Councils and need that information. Non-members did not get access. But as the current (and probably long-lived crisis approached) we decided to open everything (except free legal advice) to all the councils. Surprising results actually, with a steady trickle of new members and earlier renewals than in previous years.