Clarify: Universal registration. A few suggestions too

[Oo_Bleu_oO]

I love nabble but have a little niggle with it.

1. I have my forum set to authorised users only. Just to test it, I logged out of my account and tried to post to my forum. As expected, I saw a registration form but to my surprise, it appeared to be the same as the main Nabble registration I used to sign up for the apps, ie: http://n2.nabble.com/user/Register.jtp  Is that the correct sign up for users who simply want to use MY site's forum? I hear speak of an invitation to join when a non-member tries to post? All I saw was the above form, is that correct?

2. If it is correct then, must I manually authorise every user myself, via the e-mail notification system?

3. If it is NOT the correct sign up link for simple users, then what is? (so that I can link to it on my forum's description) Might I suggest,  the addition of a "click here to join THIS forum" link, rather than the "register" you currently have? Seems a bit odd that every forum user has to register the same way as those who are signing up as owners. Yet STILL need be authorised by the owner of their chosen forum AS WELL.

4. Wouldn't it be better to have users signing up for the forum and/or apps they want to join and that be that? I realise this could be fiddly for those with an entire site based on Nabble, with lots of sign ups and such. Perhaps though, you could have a system whereby a user joining a sites forum is automatically registered on ALL that sites Nabble apps? Rather than Nabble universal accounts?

Please, if I have misunderstood signing up as an owner/user,  feel free to clarify and explain it fully. I am willing to be wrong <33

EDIT: I now understand that all users have universal accounts still feel some of my points were valid. Hence I didn't delete my post, hope this is ok? Are any of my ideas viable?

 

[Graham Perrin]

Hi

To an ordinary registered user of Nabble, an attempt to post in your LPK Forum presents this type of form:


Side note, FAO Nabble: the description Private Forum may mislead; this type of forum:

* is visible to the public 

— e.g. we can read <http://n2.nabble.com/F.A.Q-tt2578260.html>

* requires authority, from the owner, before my first post to the area.

Associated topics 

Improvement to wording of confirmation of authorisation

Expression 'Apply to Join…' — not ideal, especially if a user has previously applied, then confirmed subscription, then registered, then confirmed registration (resolved) — that topic touched upon the extra steps involved where there is a more traditional mailing list underlying, or parallel to, the Nabble forum. Overall: the wording now is hopefully better than it used to be but still, I sense that the owner of a forum can not easily visualise how things will look to the user…

Nabble Help: Options: Users

Hope that helps.

Regards

Graham (Nabble user)

[Oo_Bleu_oO]

Yes it does, but do non nabblers have to register with nabble2 too? or is the authorization enough to enable them to post?

[Graham Perrin]

In a screen such as this:



— both invitations to login relate to (new) Nabble, n2.nabble.com

— from forum to forum, credentials do not vary.

A previously registered user of (old) Nabble1 should re-register just once with new Nabble.

Regards
Graham

[Oo_Bleu_oO]

See, that is where my (prospective) members are whining. They don't understand why they must FIRST register as a Nabble member and THEN apply for authorization to post on my forum. It just seems too fiddly and I have to say, I see their point.  
 
Nabble is a brilliant idea on principle but to achieve the feel of a closed membership, members have to effectively "jump through hoops" with a two pronged sign-up system. It's just not what people are used to these days. The general opinion (among my friends/possible members) seems to be, I'll gain less interest in my site if I continue with it based on Nabble. My members would MUCH rather sign-up once and then BE a member of MY private forum alone.

The only other solution I have is to take authorization off. My prospective members have indicated that due to the subject of the forum, they would not be comfortable posting, knowing that thousands of other Nabble members could read their thoughts.  I completely understand why they feel this. So, I'm moving to another forum. However, I'm leaving the gallery and blog on Nabble, since the blog only allows public COMMENTS and the any spam the gallery gets is easily deleted.

To close, I simply don't think that the current forum structure works for closed membership forums.

Whereas it is brilliant for read only and public forums (such as an  FAQ or public feedback board) Private board sign-ups should (perhaps) be more in line with other free forums out there, I.E : one sign-up, one forum membership. I realize that Nabble doesn't work this way and respect that. However,  the homepage could be clearer about the fact that membership is universal rather than standalone. I know that it  talks of "universal back-end"  but can everyone be expected to understand the pros and cons?

[Graham Perrin]

Oo_Bleu_oO wrote

… My members would MUCH rather sign-up once

Whilst there's a second step, there's only one set of credentials.

If the routine could be simplified further, with OpenID, would prospective members find it more appealing?

and then BE a member of MY private forum alone. …

Your members may use your forum alone, if they so choose. No obligation to use other Nabble fora.

[Oo_Bleu_oO]

possibly openID is the way to go, it would certainly make things clearer.  Still, while I'm aware that people are not obligated to use other Nabble services, it still causes confusion, as the web site doesn't make it clear enough really.

[Will <Nabble>]

Thanks for your suggestion. I think your suggestion makes sense. We will make it happen. Right now we are working on a major social network release. So we are slow in responding to suggestions. But I'll  make sure we have it after the next new release. You may also want to check out the social network thing by nabble, which will be in about a month.