bigfish1965 Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Just an informal poll and the results, either way, are not binding. We have other considerations to take into account, such as bandwidth and sponsors input as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greencoachdog Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Well that settles it.. 100% vote viewing to members with a minimum of posts... ok Geek Boy... make it happen!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pigeontroller Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I'm not sure how i'd vote on this...I do think if you don't contribute positively to a forum you don't nessasarily deserve to reap the benefits...This is a great forum because of the wide varity of people using it. Muskies Canada recently got its forum up and running, members of MCI only, and its so far a nice small group so sharing info is alot more appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Well that settles it.. 100% vote viewing to members with a minimum of posts... ok Geek Boy... make it happen!!! Im with the southern boy. I wouldnt say "GEEK" Though ,well maybe.LOL Edited May 9, 2007 by misfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Clemens Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Rick - I voted no, not to restrict. I can certainly see both ways on this issue, kinda tough. 1). I can see your point on those who may consistently receive, but give nothing (or very little). There are a lot of members here who give, give, and give more ... to anyone at any time. Loads of great folks on here and this is why OFC is basically the only forum I participate in and visit regularly. 2). On the other hand, if we block parts of the posts from visitors, or may I say 'potential members', would that drive them away ? If you would access this forum, only to see things blocked out, could you really get a sense of what we're all about ? Seeing the posts, reports, pics, and such ... maybe that would get some folks excited about joining up and becoming active. Not sure, maybe this would only reflect a very small percentage of the visitors. Even so, by becoming a member, that does not imply an active role in the board. Tough question Rick ... you're making me thing to hard at this hour. Probably good and bad points on both sides of the question. The more I read, and re-read, and re-read my item number 2 above, maybe I should have voted for members only with a minimum number of posts. Yeah ... I should have voted for members only with a minimum number of posts. My head hurts now. Edited May 9, 2007 by Rich Clemens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerritt Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 If people are that concerned with their spots being abused Then I say go for it! My personal opinion? If you want to have access to the information that is offered up then you also have to contribute. There are no free rides in life... Why should this be any different? at any given time there are more non-registered users then there is people that actually have something to contribute... I feel ALOT use this site and give nothing back in return based upon the numbers we have all seen... I say DO IT! those that would like to get information... also have to give something back to the community. That being said.... be sure that lurkers can still see the site... and see various posts.. and the ads. eventually they will get the hint and perhaps register and perhaps even contribute. The time for the free ride is over.. I am sure if we went through the logs from 5 years ago you will see alot of the same (or similar IP's because of DHCP) people using us. Gerritt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinS Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 your the mod your the boss you do what you gotta do my vote was yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted May 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Interesting points so far. I can do either, I think..that is allow only members or only members with 2 or more posts see the pics. I know that it is much easier to make it members only, but both are do-able (AFAIK). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huntervasili Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 As I said in my other post I agree only members should be able to see these pictures, and they must contribute in some way by posting... And of course the classifieds section should have some restriction too so we dont get people who try to sell their stuff without any contributon... for what its worth I would say 10 posts is fair... Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 here's a picture of my best muskie spot on simcoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heybud_e Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 im in agreement with Bill, i think after 10 posts, you should be given the privelege to view pictures, two thumbs up!..Bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 As said by Bill about the classifieds, you see someone show up and start to unload. Maybe there should be a minimum number, how many, to be determined by those that own/administrate the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vance Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I was always told if you don't have anything USEFULL to say don't say anything at all.If I want to get posts it would be simple to say nice fish,nice boat etc.Maybe I could even ask the same question thats already been asked 10 times.Frankly I read the posts ,I know how to use the search feature and unless I can constructively add to the post I don't chime in. It would be terible to read one of moosebunks posts with blurred backrounds and deleted river names.I realize that in the GTA things are a little different but it doesn't take much of an effort to find out where everyone is fishing even if they try to hide it. No one has an exclusive honey hole there is always someone who has the same one. As usual it is the 5% of the population who SCREW it up for everyone else and we are the ones who suffer.I could go on but don't want and look like CANADAVE. vance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theRJ Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I think it is a good system to go with the minimum posts. I did vote yes BUT. The problem is that some people will still try to get pictures and we will end up with a ton of spam posts. ( i use spam as a catchall for useless posts ie. ijbzigg ) Then they will get the minimum number of posts to see the pics anyway except those of us wanting to make a post or find a post will need to wade through the mess. The only solution I can see is for posters to be responsible with their posting of pictures. ABSOLUTELY NO OFFENCE is intended but it is the only feasible solution. You dont have to go to the effort of blurring all of your pictures, a simple solution is get downward angle shots. Get your photographer to stand while you crouch with your fish. The background will be grass, shrubs or water etc. If someone can identify the individual rock you were standing on when you caught that fish what can you do. I apparently made 2 cents to spend! RJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puckhead Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I voted for some restriction - although I fear a title wave of "hi" and "nice fish" posts await... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrap Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 If a lurker is viewing this right now then he knows all he has to do is post 10 times which can easly be done in one day. It might confuse some of the other lurkers but I still don't see that fixing the problem. I say we just leave it as it is and just take some better photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger Shark Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Well I just joined and I dont see a problem with setting a minimum post amount for viewing stuff and I have only a couple of posts here. That being said I have never looked at someones pics andgone out actively searching the exact spot to fish. And I dont think most people do, but I guess there are a few as the other thread on this page says" I used your pics to find spots" or something to that effect. Anyway, I will post more than ten in no time so it really wont bother me one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfish1965 Posted May 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Classifieds are not an issue because we receive a benefit as active mmebers by getting a chance at some deals. Not worried. I can also set classifieds to not count towards post totals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bassman Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 You guys may want to reconsider any restrictions on the board, as you may be perceived as elitists. I'd be interested to see what would happen if OFC did not keep stats on how many posts people made. Perhaps fewer posts. Might help the bandwidth problem. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhioFisherman Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 LOL, if you have to cherry pick your spots off the web you haven`t spent enough time fishing! Chances are if you went to those spots your results wouldn`t be good. You can learn more fishing long, hard, and often! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northhunter Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I voted no. Won't go into a rant over it but vance and bassman's posts are the only ones I've read that have similar thoughts. I've been here a long time. The post count elitest thing (not sure what else to call it) is something I despise everywhere I see it. This is a fishing board. They are pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowPoke Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I voted no. Part of the reason I joined this forum was for the reports. Active members sharing advice, techniques and good ole fish porn. I am of the opinion that; -if a person recognizes the spot (s)he's already been there. -if you want to protect your spot, take care not to reveal too much. Restricting images will do nothing to keep poachers away nor will it clean up the shoreline from inconsiderate anglers. Can we even quantify the damage caused by these 'revealing' images? Of coarse not. Because it's plausible, it doesn't mean it's a problem. I think restricting images is a knee-jerk reaction for something that may or may not be a problem. -Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) I voted no.Part of the reason I joined this forum was for the reports. Active members sharing advice, techniques and good ole fish porn. I am of the opinion that; -if a person recognizes the spot (s)he's already been there. -if you want to protect your spot, take care not to reveal too much. Restricting images will do nothing to keep poachers away nor will it clean up the shoreline from inconsiderate anglers. Can we even quantify the damage caused by these 'revealing' images? Of coarse not. Because it's plausible, it doesn't mean it's a problem. I think restricting images is a knee-jerk reaction for something that may or may not be a problem. -Brian I actually voted yes with a minimum number of posts, but was probably a bit rash in my decision...In retrospect I agree with Brian. It's really up to the individual to not reveal too much. For the success and health of the board in general it's probably best not to change a proven formula. My guess is if these changes were instituted less people would join and the board would stagnate.. Edited May 9, 2007 by solopaddler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoz Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 I long to have the 'good ol' daze' back, where you could take unrestricted pictures, trade info openly, and share everything. But . . . . the 'net & it's countless info sites got too popular . . . . you show a photo of a nice fish, and where you got it . . . . literally within HOURS it was 'elbow to elbow' as the great unwashed couch potatoes decended in hordes, trampling everything, leaving garbage, and not returning a single fish, not even a minnow, to the water. A good example . . . . the park over by the causeway on Scugog used to be a great place for families to fish . . .. . you could even get a few pickerel, bass, carp, perch and other small panfish from shore. The last 2 years, I never saw ANYTHING caught near shore within casting distance . . . . most of the shoreline was taken over by people who strung lines out from shore several hundred feet, to anchored buoys, and with multiple hooks . . . . you get 10 people doing this, 50' apart, nobody else can fish, and they get everything that swims! Just one more family shore spot fished into oblivion! I hesitate to even post a fishing picture now, no matter how well disguised it is, (and if I must go to great lengths to disguise it . . . why bother?) for fear somebody recognizes it, and reveals it on another board with NO restrictions, and even GPS waypoints are allowed! I think it's a great idea if you must take the time to register, AND contribute, BEFORE getting access to ANY info! The actual fishing related threads with good pics are getting fewer & fewer, soon there will be NO shots of fish being caught . . . . if they post 'em at all, it'll be when they get 'em home, and it'll be done in the back yard! This is progress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Thorpe Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Well,I think OFC has always been open to all public viewing and over the years that is what has made this site its strength. I fully understand and share the view of Snog ,Xrap and misfish,but I think we should heed his advice this coming season and consider angles when taking pics.Not regulate or privatize the site To block out pics to all,in my view is defeating the purpose and what made OFC,we might just loose some of those viewers I agree not all lurkers are on the honest side,but so is some of our friends,aquaintance and family members.Somewhere you gotta say,who cares,so be it Its the responsibility of the poster and pic taker that should consider somehow not to show the background. Its up to the lurkers whom use this info to respect what they have found There will always be people trying to rip and reap from others,there will always be those that seem to come out of the closet,some that will follow you,at some point you address it yourself.I dont think OFC needs to be involved in this type of control,afterall we also are the public in which this board has come together to be I think sharing your reports and trips is a personal choice,I think the education of what could happen if your not privatly carefull is the responsibility of the poster,not OFC I am of the thinking of Snog and Misfish,I dont post much reports if any,because at times its my family time or friendly fish,I have dealt with the negative side of people whom cant do things for themselves or just ask,they prefer the sneaky way,in the long run I have found its not me that really lost or got ripped its those that endeavored in the actions that did themselves in Possibly suggesting a propsoed way of taking pics or cropping would be an alternative I voted no Either way I am easy Edited May 9, 2007 by marc thorpe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts