Implementing an opt-out would be easy.
Implementing it is relatively easy. It just nullifies the point of the system, especially since then it'd have to be opt in, to be fair (since we didn't tell anyone we were publishing their user names, and not all of them can be gleaned by looking through threads).
We don't have a privacy policy, but that strikes me as a sort of line that bears consideration.
It hadn't occurred to me that username searching would be available to non-registered users. I need to think on it more.
As I said, if everyone wants it, I can hardly object on the part of anyone but myself -- however, this discussion might want a larger audience than us geeks.
What can you do with a username besides know that someone is part of the board? I'm asking because that would have a lot to do with whether or not I'm in favor.
What can you do with a username besides know that someone is part of the board?
Nothing as presented. We can make sure the page is blocked from search engines.
I have a roll call allergy, which might just turn out to be only my idiosyncrasy.
As I said, if everyone wants it, I can hardly object on the part of anyone but myself -- however, this discussion might want a larger audience than us geeks.
I definitely think it should be a wider discussion.
I kind of like being able to see the names, myself, but it's a significant change in information available. For lurkers even more so than posters.
Fixed the captilisation thing and improved the column partitioning logic. Gawd, I hate it when I say I am going to stop fiddling with a thing, then don't.
There is no robots instruction in the thing, yet. No brainer, there. I swear I will not add that one line until we have some idea if we even want the the thing.
I swear I will not add that one line until we have some idea if we even want the the thing.
Not to say "fiddle", but shouldn't you put in the no robots instruction anyway?
For lurkers even more so than posters.
This. This is exactly my squick point. I'm having trouble articulating exactly why it is, but it is.
Not to say "fiddle", but shouldn't you put in the no robots instruction anyway?
Done. I hereby swear upon the structural integrity of my favorite kite I will never touch this code again, until somebody says we want it.
No.
Really.
eta: Alrighty. that didn't work out. If there
is
something I can do (java, php, pearl, sql, html/css), let me know.
Gus, you've been added to the volunteer list.
Which I should probably keep formally somewhere. D'oh.
An addition to the modification list, and it's a small one: When someone tries to validate, and it fails, the image displayed is still this.
That should be changed.
