Do you think there should be a Members Only Stream Reports section included on the site?

[JakesLeakyWaders]

I don't know how to set it up but just a simple yes/no poll should be sufficient. PM me mods if I am a screwball and should know how to make the poll work. You edit this out too.

Do you agree that a "Members Only Stream Reports" section is a much needed and would be a welcomed addition to Paflyfish.com ? Yes or No.

 

[jayL]

No. I'll paste my reasoning from the other thread:

It's been discussed before, but the logistics don't make any sense.

It's as simple as making an account to see the reports, so people would just do that.

I would imagine we would get a spike in new registrants once the word got out*, but few new posters.

Also, consider that dave doesn't necessarily run this site as a service to us. It is a website, and they are in the business of generating traffic.

*Since this thread is posted in the general forum, word is now out.

 

[pete41]

yes

 

[Maurice]

what would be the qualification for membership?

 

[jayL]

Maurice wrote:
what would be the qualification for membership?

A few clicks and keystrokes. I certainly wouldn't automatically feel comfortable posting any secrets, and I think that it's misleading to insinuate that there would be any "security" to the information.

If it's on the internet, it's freely available. I would hate to see someone post a "secret", thinking its only for those that post regularly.

 

[Fishidiot]

Leaning no.

 

[MattBoyer]

What Jay said.

Boyer

 

[Maurice]

I think the reports section serves the purpose intended. And I think the requirements for a report being there, County, stream name and date keep the "secret streams" out of the spotlight for the most part. Being able to talk about a said stream in a generic way in the general forum or stream locations forum without naming names is not spot burning. Unless people catch on and recognize it and let the cat out of the bag. In which case its only a moment in time, usually on the first page only a few days to under a week until it rolls off the page and lurkers are less likely to see it.

Lurkers looking to find spots worth the transportation costs to get there based on the random mention of names in the general or stream location forum should find better uses of their time.

I wonder if the folks who fear spot burning try to have google or other search engines block their secret streams?

I think its a ridiculous argument to suggest that spot burning is ramped here. However, the reason I believe it is not a problem is because of the peer presure generated by the population of the board. I believe it is a system that works well.

As for a private forum for stream reports on secret streams....if you want to brag to your friends about your secret streams, PM thme, thats private. If you put it up on an internet page, someone will find it. Its silly to sugest they wouldn't

I am not a big fan of making rules that cater to the exception.

 

[goodfortune]

jayL wrote:

Maurice wrote:
what would be the qualification for membership?

A few clicks and keystrokes. I certainly wouldn't automatically feel comfortable posting any secrets, and I think that it's misleading to insinuate that there would be any "security" to the information.

If it's on the internet, it's freely available. I would hate to see someone post a "secret", thinking its only for those that post regularly.

I agree with the concerns of having people sign up, only to look at the "members only" reports.

Would having a minimum number of posts requirement to see the reports help? I've seen this used on other message boards to address similar issues.

 

[Maurice]

Well its apparent that the minimum number of posts requirement could easily be achieved by posting what amount to chatroom replys or undescribed links just to gain access.

 

[rrt]

yes.

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Yeah what if we use number of posts as a membership qualifier. At least then by the time they are using the private forum you have heard of them or seen there name a few times on the site ?

Is that a possible qualifier Mo?

 

[jayL]

Maurice wrote:
Well its apparent that the minimum number of posts requirement could easily be achieved by posting what amount to chatroom replys or undescribed links just to gain access.

And having X posts doesn't make you a responsible angler...

There is no way to selectively broadcast information. That's what the "broad" part of the word means.

 

[Maurice]

I see the only real way to make the club exclusive would be to have people pay to register.....how much would you pay to sell your secret stream or soul?

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Forget it. lol

I do agree with you Mo, as far as most people not posting certain streams do to peer pressure. I guess I was feeling a little pumped about it. Although I would still say if we Put a Super Secret Trophy Holes section in we could at least generate more visitors.

lol

 

[pete41]

How did I find this place-googled up trout fishing in Pa.
If I were a baiter or dynamiter I could visit without being seen or heard-some may think the latter desirable but I would know where to go with out any effort on my part-.thanks for the easy info-

 

[albatross]

I'd say no. Besides, it already exists. The off-topic forum is members only and no one would complain about a few stream reports posted in there should you choose to do so.

 

[afishinado]

Yes vote here.

If the topic could only be read by regular posters that have (pick a number)...say 500 posts, than you can be pretty sure that you know very well who these guys are. I find it pretty far-fetched that someone would register and post 500 times to gain access to the topic.

In the mean time, a PM to fellow members with info will have to suffice.


BTW, we have the same thread going in 2 different places.

 

[shipnfish2006]

I like it the way it is. People that don't do so already are not going to post reports about their favorite little streams regardless of whether it's 2000 people that can read it or 200 people.

 

[dasofas]

It's not the arrow, nor the target, that makes the bullseye. I say keep it the way it is, share a little (it is actually gratifying), use discretion, and quit letting pressure be the excuse. The biomass is still there, on average, year over year (assuming water quality does not become the issue). If you don't want tougher fishing (I did not say less fish), on "your" spot, don't say anything.