[BrewBama]

But this still begs the question:  if one is already logged in to the website with their user ID and password, which is necessary to access some content, why isn't that sufficient to leave a comment?

I agree.  A member should have to present AHA member credentials once and have unrestricted access to the entire gamut until log out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robert]

But this still begs the question:  if one is already logged in to the website with their user ID and password, which is necessary to access some content, why isn't that sufficient to leave a comment?

I agree.  A member should have to present AHA member credentials once and have unrestricted access to the entire gamut until log out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do realize that non-members read the content on the website and may wish to comment, so a login option other than as a member may still be in order.  Should we compel people to pay for a membership in order to explore the content, any more than we should compel them to have a Facebook or Google account to share insights?  Should we confine comments to members?  Maybe, I don't know.   Why not multiple options to post a comment?  Sign in as an AHA member, sign in with Facebook,  sign in with Gmail.  Member only content would still require signing in with a member ID and password.   But leaving comments could be done with any of those.   If we want to be the go-to site for exchange of information and building community for homebrewers, we should expand, not restrict, hombrewers' ability to have their voices heard, and hopefully those who find the content beneficial will feel driven to become paying members to gain full benefits and access.  Membership should sell itself.  Those who are already members should not have to meet any additional requirements to fully utilize the website.

[BrewBama]

I was reading the article on dimethyl sulfide off-flavor that is featured on the AHA home page today. I spotted an error and wanted to point it out in the comment section, but the only way to comment is to log in with a Facebook account. I am a member of the AHA with an AHA online account, but I can't use that to comment. I need to have a stinking Facebook account! Talk about leaving me with an off-flavor!!!

BTW... what was the error?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Robert]

I was reading the article on dimethyl sulfide off-flavor that is featured on the AHA home page today. I spotted an error and wanted to point it out in the comment section, but the only way to comment is to log in with a Facebook account. I am a member of the AHA with an AHA online account, but I can't use that to comment. I need to have a stinking Facebook account! Talk about leaving me with an off-flavor!!!

BTW... what was the error?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good question.   I think I noticed a quibble in one of the earlier articles in the series, can't recall now what it was, minor but noticable, but I thought I'd let it pass until someone else brought it up -- this series being just the sort of generally authoritative content we crave.  I mean you and me, BrewBama.  Isn't it nice to be scanning for details instead of gasping at the whole dang thang?

[AzBruin]

But this still begs the question:  if one is already logged in to the website with their user ID and password, which is necessary to access some content, why isn't that sufficient to leave a comment?

I agree.  A member should have to present AHA member credentials once and have unrestricted access to the entire gamut until log out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do realize that non-members read the content on the website and may wish to comment, so a login option other than as a member may still be in order.  Should we compel people to pay for a membership in order to explore the content, any more than we should compel them to have a Facebook or Google account to share insights?  Should we confine comments to members?  Maybe, I don't know.   Why not multiple options to post a comment?  Sign in as an AHA member, sign in with Facebook,  sign in with Gmail.  Member only content would still require signing in with a member ID and password.   But leaving comments could be done with any of those.   If we want to be the go-to site for exchange of information and building community for homebrewers, we should expand, not restrict, hombrewers' ability to have their voices heard, and hopefully those who find the content beneficial will feel driven to become paying members to gain full benefits and access.  Membership should sell itself.  Those who are already members should not have to meet any additional requirements to fully utilize the website.

I disagree with that. Ever heard of trolls? People that don't brew, disagree for whatever reason with Homebrewing? Logged in members should be able to comment, no one else. And any logged in members should have full access to the site, without any third party requirements.

[Robert]

But this still begs the question:  if one is already logged in to the website with their user ID and password, which is necessary to access some content, why isn't that sufficient to leave a comment?

I agree.  A member should have to present AHA member credentials once and have unrestricted access to the entire gamut until log out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do realize that non-members read the content on the website and may wish to comment, so a login option other than as a member may still be in order.  Should we compel people to pay for a membership in order to explore the content, any more than we should compel them to have a Facebook or Google account to share insights?  Should we confine comments to members?  Maybe, I don't know.   Why not multiple options to post a comment?  Sign in as an AHA member, sign in with Facebook,  sign in with Gmail.  Member only content would still require signing in with a member ID and password.   But leaving comments could be done with any of those.   If we want to be the go-to site for exchange of information and building community for homebrewers, we should expand, not restrict, hombrewers' ability to have their voices heard, and hopefully those who find the content beneficial will feel driven to become paying members to gain full benefits and access.  Membership should sell itself.  Those who are already members should not have to meet any additional requirements to fully utilize the website.

I disagree with that. Ever heard of trolls? People that don't brew, disagree for whatever reason with Homebrewing? Logged in members should be able to comment, no one else. And any logged in members should have full access to the site, without any third party requirements.

Point well taken.

[Bilsch]

I don't understand why some people are so resistant to using social media. It's a tool. Nothing more. What if a mechanic ran up against a stuck lug nut and you handed him an air impact wrench and he said "I refuse to use it!"
You wouldn't think much of that mechanic would you?

True but then the impact wrench isn't selling off your personal data.

[Kevin]

I don't understand why some people are so resistant to using social media. It's a tool. Nothing more. What if a mechanic ran up against a stuck lug nut and you handed him an air impact wrench and he said "I refuse to use it!"
You wouldn't think much of that mechanic would you?

True but then the impact wrench isn't selling off your personal data.

Much ado about nothing. Your personal data is already in circulation.

[Robert]

I don't understand why some people are so resistant to using social media. It's a tool. Nothing more. What if a mechanic ran up against a stuck lug nut and you handed him an air impact wrench and he said "I refuse to use it!"
You wouldn't think much of that mechanic would you?

True but then the impact wrench isn't selling off your personal data.

Much ado about nothing. Your personal data is already in circulation.

Quite right.  I do not delude myself that I have any privacy or security whatsoever.  But I do not wish to participate in Facebook etc.  I know everything I do is visible to the world.  I just don't care to see the world back.

[KellerBrauer]

+1
Never had a FB account, never will, absolutely refuse to.....

+1, +1

I don’t use FaceBook or Twitter, nor am I interested in trying it.  I believe our world is relying far too much on what people post on FaceBook and Twitter and have lost the ability to effectively communicate.  What people read in words is not necessarily the intended meaning.  That said, not all Social Media is bad.  This forum is Social Media, is it not?

[apple]

I don't understand why some people are so resistant to using social media. It's a tool. Nothing more. What if a mechanic ran up against a stuck lug nut and you handed him an air impact wrench and he said "I refuse to use it!"
You wouldn't think much of that mechanic would you?

True but then the impact wrench isn't selling off your personal data.

Much ado about nothing. Your personal data is already in circulation.

That doesn't make it right or mean that we should not advocate for change. What is going on could build to something truly terrible for future generations. Generations that create monstrosities should also correct them.

Asking to be able to bypass Facebook is where change starts.

[Visor]

+1
Never had a FB account, never will, absolutely refuse to.....

+1, +1

I don’t use FaceBook or Twitter, nor am I interested in trying it.  I believe our world is relying far too much on what people post on FaceBook and Twitter and have lost the ability to effectively communicate.  What people read in words is not necessarily the intended meaning.  That said, not all Social Media is bad.  This forum is Social Media, is it not?

  Damn! Why'd ya have to go ruin it for me? Just when I was beginning to like this forum.