|
View Poll Results: How do you feel about alllowing webcrawlers to archive this forum? | |||
Yes, I would like to see the forum in the Internet Archive. | 25 | 24.51% | |
No, I would prefer to keep this forum unarchivable, as it is now. | 77 | 75.49% | |
Voters: 102. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
03-31-06, 02:51 PM | |
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alberta
|
Although I do like searching for and finding stuff, generally speaking, I voted no for this particular forum. Mostly because I think that although there is a lot of useful information at VF, there's also a lot of personal information shared because of the back-and-forth conversational context.
I might feel differently about other forums and other internet communities, though. I do like being able to search for my posts from within VF, I guess, mostly for reference, and to jar my sieve-like memory.
__________________
Sophie be as relaxed as you can be, as you do what you gotta do. ~erich schiffman |
03-31-06, 03:33 PM | ||
VF Supporter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
|
Quote:
__________________
Cheers, Karen QUIT SLOUCHING!!! |
|
03-31-06, 03:50 PM | ||
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alberta
|
Quote:
__________________
Sophie be as relaxed as you can be, as you do what you gotta do. ~erich schiffman |
|
03-31-06, 05:46 PM | ||
VF Supporter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California (yay!!)
|
Quote:
__________________
Judy |
|
03-31-06, 09:45 PM | ||
VF Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2002
|
I can see both sides, but I voted "yes" yesterday, if only to be a contrarian.
Obviously you don't need Internet Archive to archive--I wasn't even going to post until I read the way the conversation's been going into today. - My own position is similar to Lianne's--not about the Internet Archive per se, though, but about archiving. [In this post, all general references to "archives" are VF-specific.] I'd like to see the archives preserved; I'd like to have the opportunity to see posts if I wanted to, even if they're old (does anyone keep old workout logs--or does anyone throw away old photos simply because they're old?). I'd see deleting old threads simply because they're old (or letting them fade into vapor) almost like wiping out history or letting it disappear. - I also agree on the searching: here's to hoping that upcoming versions of the software have or are compatible with better search functions. - I do appreciate that storage space is limited, and I do see that it's easier and less dicey to delete old check-ins wholesale than picking through them to see what's least worthy of saving , but I'd rather not see that happening either. Lots of Yoga Check-In history has simply disappeared, and with it lots of informative and interesting conversation. I've saved some of the old check-ins, but I don't agree entirely with Quote:
- Where am I on using the Internet Archive? At the risk of being unpopular, I wouldn't really mind, especially as I'm very private anyway and don't share information on publicly accessible boards, no matter how searchable they are. I can see why others would be uncomfortable, though, and I respect them, especially if they aren't opposed to the mere idea of keeping old posts archived and searchable within VF. (No, a thousand times no, I don't want to restrict VF reading access to registered members only without some extremely good reason.)
__________________
"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand." The Velveteen Rabbit |
|
03-31-06, 09:48 PM | |||||||
VF Supporter
Join Date: Mar 2002
|
- What really made me post was seeing the old "information"/"conversation" split brought up.
Quote:
I'm interested in history; sometimes I'm interested in old books, not because I think that what they're saying is still true or valuable in themselves, but because they preserve ideas, viewpoints, and less exalted things that can inform us (directly or indirectly), entertain us, warn us, or whatever else. (After scouring the leftovers of a rummage sale, where I picked up an old P.E. book, I was actually excited to have a list of exercises that Girls Shouldn't Do in my hot little hands.) What I said goes for old VF posts as well as old books. As I wrote earlier this week in something that I haven't yet posted, we have Lenore Levine in the archives; I never met her in person or probably talked a lot with her on VF, and this memory of her posts is the best memory of her that I have. Quote:
Don't you think that you can write an "informative" post in a "conversational" way, switch modes unobtrusively in the same post, or something? Quote:
Quote:
* By the way, I don't really think that "conversation" dies the next day and should never be unearthed again, but what's the proper counterpart to "eternal," "timeless," and "deathless"? After all, when I read Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It doesn't happen all at once," said the Skin Horse. "You become. It takes a long time. That's why it doesn't happen often to people who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept. Generally, by the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things don't matter at all, because once you are Real you can't be ugly, except to people who don't understand." The Velveteen Rabbit |
||||||
03-31-06, 10:39 PM | |
VF Supporter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Toronto!
|
I guess for me, I am just uncomfortable with the *retroactivity* of it. If, for example, there was a way to only do it for posts from this day onward, and all new members new of this rule, that would be fine and I would restrict my posts accordingly. I don't think I give out too much personal, identifiable info here. But at the same time, I have been burned in the past by an identifiable last name and a post or two somewhere that I did not know would be archived for all time (for example, the aforementioned usenet posts from when I was a teen). I don't think it is fair to tell people that things they said off the cuff are now going to be saved forever. If you want to save it forever, I think you should only be allowed to archive things people KNOW are going to be archived. Maybe if my last name was Smith, I wouldn't be so paranoid. Certainly, I am a LOT more careful now than I was when I was a kid. But some of the stuff people posted on the net in the past was posted before the idea of the internet archive and google caches were stuff people even considered as possibilities---and now, everything they said is saved forever, often with no way for the person to remove it. That is REALLY scary to me. They DID NOT KNOW that it would be saved forever, and it IS. I really don't see how that can be anything but an invasion of privacy. As I said, I am fine with starting afresh and all posts from such and such day forward being saved, but I would have a huge problem with stuff from the past that was written under the assumption of transience being retroactively archived against my will.
|
Tags |
old thread alert, search |
|
|