Is there a way to make the topic list visible of a given category, but remove the ability to see the content of the topic without logging in?
Not with Discourse by itself, but you may be interested in this plugin. Make sure you don’t use it for any sensitive information - the topic contents is still visible in search results
7 Likes
Thanks for the link.
May I ask if one is able to “hide” the contents of say… a link, unless a member is logged in?
I haven’t used it before, but maybe this plugin could help:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/content-lock-bbcode/48293?u=david_taylor
2 Likes
Thank you. Seems everything is a plugin, odd such things aren’t supported on install.
I appreciate you taking the time to help.
That’s because it’s an extremely niche feature; check how many (or rather, how few) previous topics there are about this feature, and you’ll notice that the vast majority of Discourse sites don’t need this – so, it doesn’t go in core.
5 Likes
What is your problem with a plugin for such a feature?
Oddly enough, this request comes up a fair bit. But I believe it is for ultimately negative reasons — people want to play the peek-a-boo content game, show people topic titles then demand they create an account if they wish to see more.
6 Likes
TBH, I’m surprised that it does. Considering the fact that Google and other search engines are “non-logged in users” I would think that most would not want to trade off losing content visibility in exchange for teasing visitors into registering based solely on what topic titles they can see. If they ever find their way to the forum to begin with.
2 Likes
I never even thought of that. Lol Doesn’t really make sense though as you’re going to lose a ton of members that way.
For me, regardless, I’m going to have a private category. Making it completely invisible to the rest of the community doesn’t really make sense to me… No one would even know it exists.
I don’t like messing with things. Even small things. I want to install, and go… default theme, default software, default everything.
Then you get default behaviour, which is to not bait-and-switch search engine users.
6 Likes
You realize just because someone “can” do something with a feature, doesn’t necessarily mean they “will” do something with a feature. :S
Yes, and I’m sure you realize that even if you’re not interpreting your own intentions that way, the act of showing topic titles without allowing access to posts is considered to be bait-and-switch. The expected behavior by users is that if they can see the topics, they should be able to read them. Deviating from that user experience is widely accepted to be a dick-move, which is why Discourse doesn’t have such functionality baked-in.
The team aren’t inflexible, if someone presents a well thought-out case for a feature or change they’ll be willing to accept a PR or even build it themselves. The whole point is that nobody has been able to make a case that doesn’t fall into the above category.
5 Likes
Can you link to live examples of sites on the web that do what you want? So we can better understand what you are trying to accomplish?
3 Likes
… can you please explain how as long as the titles of threads contain the content suggested, it’s meeting the criteria of “bait-and-switch”??
^ The above covers it succinctly enough, if users are presented with a resource they should be able to access it. The act of forcing users to register just to be able to read is user-hostile. Many of us will find an alternative site if presented by a login prompt. Your role when running a community is to give them positive reasons to register, because they want to belong to the community and participate.
3 Likes
I can give an example easily. I was a member at slingshotforum.com, they have a section for supporting members. Topic titles are seen, content is not. The idea is that if you want to join in the dialogue on those topics, you have to become a premium member.
I can’t find the logic in having permissions to prevent anyone from even knowing a category exists? Which is how it’s currently set up, unless I’m mistaken? (which I could be).
No, it really doesn’t… I mean, it’s fine if you want to say you don’t like the idea, no problem. However, it really doesn’t meet the criteria of “bait-and-switch”. No doubt however, someone could use the feature in that manner.
You seem to have a very broad view of what is “user-hostile”. If I want to read someones Facebook page, and the comments on posts, I need to be registered. Is this also user-hostile to you? Personally I see no issue with this.