Registered workers ONLY (schools + companies) forums?

[mb2k01]

Thinking about it though ... would you include LA staff in these forums? Especially if you are talking about stuff you are doing different to the prescribe way of doing things?

 

I guess this would be open to discussion / vote too.

Personally, I'd say yes as they fall in to my completely made up category of "company or school worker"!

 

I know some other members might want to extend my original suggestion to exclude LA workers too, and use the feature as a more full-on + secure "Behind the red door" kind of section, but that’s something completely different to what I was suggesting (and something I wouldn't take part in myself).

 

I happen to know at least one (and I suspect more!) of my LA exist on here. We've actually posted on each other’s threads before and know who each other are. As this is a public medium it's down to individuals to choose how to represent themselves, but my choice is to represent myself in the same way I would at work. At work if I have something negative to say I will say it (as long as it is still constructive in some way), and that's what I do here.

 

Andrew_C's "not in front of the children" approach summarises my idea quite well.

I have no problem with anyone reading the general content of my posts, but sometimes (if the facility was there) I might like to include more specific explanations, localised information or even geographical offers of help etc.

[markcuk]

I wasn't trying to be rude but sorry if it came across that way:)

 

Just that i am an ex techie and I don't see that I should be blocked from certain parts of the site just because I don't work in education anymore I still have friends in Education and I have also advertised this site with people I have met in New Zealand who work in education and also the private IT industry.And the feedback I have had as been very positive and they have thanked me for pointing them to this site.Plus I still use it lot for information.

 

So lets keep it open and available to everyone as it should be as it was when a few of us used to use uk.education.schools-it on google groups REMEMBER:)

 

I would rather see the rep power and the thanked thing go.Things have got a little out of hand since the introduction.

 

anyway enough ranting i am going out to enjoy a hot day in Christchurch:D

[Dos_Box]

Well trying to sponsor a forum on here is like pulling teeth so this would no doubt be even worse.

 

Really? Have you have clicked on the very large 'Contact Us' link at the top and selected 'Advertisor\Sponsor related' option?

It is very rare I miss out on an email from this system.

[Dos_Box]

Time to add my tuppenceworth in I think. As has been explained before, this was discussed in detail before and it all went pear shaped so we locked the thread.

The issue here is not only the administration of such a scheme, but deciding who is 'pure' enough to be let in. Stictly speaking everyone here (well 70%) works in education, and to start to divide up posts into hidden and visible areas will just confuse an already confusing array of forums. Combined with the inevitable wrong\cross postings which will take place and the slow creep towards 'authorising' even basic membership levels to ensure 'purity' then it will kill teh site stone dead. You must remeber. On EduGeek we don't tell people how to get around security and other issues we tell them how to fix them, and any pupils\students (please remeber that pupils are NOT students until they in 6th form or college!) who try and ask dodgy questions are spotted, outed and sent packing almost immediately.

If you want to discuss things behind closed doors then I would suggest you use the PM system or IM, but for us to start retreating behind closed doors is not a route I would ever like to see us go down. There is, however one exception to this. That is the private forums that some companies have set up from time to time with us to help with beta testing. I have to mention this in case anyone gets pedantic!

I also don't want to get even more legal documents landed on my doorstep from LEAs demanding access to certian secure forums becasue they suspect that there may be 'bad' things said about them. Best keep all that stuff out in the open. It's the only way to ensure they keep quality controls in place

 

[mb2k01]

Time to add my tuppenceworth in I think. .....

....If you want to discuss things behind closed doors then I would suggest you use the PM system or IM, but for us to start retreating behind closed doors is not a route I would ever like to see us go down. There is, however one exception to this. That is the private forums that some companies have set up from time to time with us to help with beta testing. I have to mention this in case anyone gets pedantic!

I also don't want to get even more legal documents landed on my doorstep from LEAs demanding access to certian secure forums becasue they suspect that there may be 'bad' things said about them. Best keep all that stuff out in the open. It's the only way to ensure they keep quality controls in place

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to consider and reply Dos_Box! (But at 05:11 on a Sunday morning?! )

 

I'd sum your post up as a positive one, but also a fairly clear indication the facility I'm suggesting won't be added to the site any time soon...

 

As the creator/owner of this wonderful place I think I/we have to perhaps accept the "this isn't a route I would ever like to see us go down" comment.

Although I standby the comments I've made about the positives the new facility might bring, it clearly doesn't fit with your overall vision for the site, which again is something we should probably respect.

 

Another thought did occur to me last night (I think this is someting someone did touch on earlier, or perhaps it was in the other thread). Maybe if there are a decent number of us who did still want the facility, perhaps we could just make use of the existing "groups" facility and manually manage the admin / group membership ourselves?

To link in with the comments above, I think I would prefer for you to comment on that before anything was created though. If it's the concept itself (in any technical form) that you disagree with then it would be inappropriate for us to use your site against your wishes.

[MkII]

Can I just mention whilst we're still talking, that as an ex ed tech I still feel strong commitment to this place. Tarquel and I were so desperate for something like it when we joined in the early days. I still work for the same LA and am still on the LA schools tech email list as an honorary member as they recon I have knowledge to share, and of course I do (contribute I mean ) .

 

I appreciate what you're saying and god knows I may have wanted something like it in the past ...but I learnt my lesson ...I don't think it should exist nor do I think it's physically possible that it exists. ...Now lets get back to religion.. /JOKE!

[GrumbleDook]

student/pupil/learner are all inter-changable and it is only the bean counters at LSC that insist you use students. Documents vary at govt and qango level so folk tend to say 'learner' just in case.

[GrumbleDook]

Actually ... when you think about those lists / forums which do have to have verification in place (eg certain mailing lists of JISCmail - Homepage) they tended to be set up that way from the start ... which is why they worked out ok. Just a thought.

[TSCL]

Really? Have you have clicked on the very large 'Contact Us' link at the top and selected 'Advertisor\Sponsor related' option?

It is very rare I miss out on an email from this system.

 

Sorry for how i came across there. yes i have tried the large contact us link, i also sent an email to [email protected].

[ahuxham]

I've been a member for quite some time now, and have gladly provided support/help for other members as well as receiving help for any issues I had.

 

I no longer work in Education, and wouldn't find it at all uncomfortable if I were excluded from a School only section, not what the sites about, free and open to everyone.