# Login required to see topic info
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512
**Category:** Support
**Created:** [19.Январь.2018 23:33:03 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512 "2018-01-19T23:33:03Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Stephen](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Stephen)
#### Post date: [20.Январь.2018 23:35:29 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/22 "2018-01-20T23:35:29Z")
What you just showed us isn’t an example of requiring registration to see content, it’s content reserved for paying customers, the thread titles serve as an advert for the subscription/payment/whatever is required to become a “supporting member”. That perfectly illustrates our point really, it’s not typical behavior in a comunity.
If you’re curating specific content for paying customers then take another look at the admin pages, Discourse doesn’t offer that functionality out of the box. Patreon integration for example requires a plugin, it’s not a part of core. Administering paying user memberships either means adding code, manually promoting users, or integrating SSO and member roles with another third party source.
If you’re doing any of the above it’s not a huge leap to curate a list of specific paid content behind your paywall.
> [@tetra](#):
>
> 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?
That’s a ridiculous straw-man argument. It would be user-hostile to subject them to responses from anonymous users. Facebook allows users to set access control on their content. Search engines won’t show private posts, titles to private posts aren’t published to entice registration, which is what you’ve asked for above. If a user wants it to be public then it is, in it’s entirety; if it’s private then again it is, in it’s entirety.
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [20.Январь.2018 23:46:13 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/23 "2018-01-20T23:46:13Z")
> [@steve\_pd](#):
>
> That perfectly illustrates our point really, it’s not typical behavior in a comunity.
I suppose that depends on the community, or how you view what a “community” is. Regardless, I was asked for an example of what I mean, I gave one. The example was to show a method of displaying thread titles, without content.
> [@steve\_pd](#):
>
> That’s a ridiculous straw-man argument. It would be user-hostile to subject them to responses from anonymous users. Facebook allows users to set access control on their content. Search engines won’t show private posts, titles to private posts aren’t published to entice registration, which is what you’ve asked for above. If a user wants it to be public then it is, in it’s entirety; if it’s private then again it is, in it’s entirety.
No, it’s not a strawman. :S Just so I understand you, you’re making a differentiation between google indexing content to entice registration, vs un-indexed, Is that your main issue? Or am I not following you on this?
---
### Author:  [@riking](https://meta.discourse.org/u/riking)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 00:23:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/24 "2018-01-21T00:23:11Z")
Enticing registration, versus enticing payment.
The first one is casting a wide net and hurts people coming in from SRPs for dubious benefit (… you get their email address? your “registered users” number goes up?)
The second one has limited scope (people definitely interested in the content) and has concrete benefit for the site (money is exchanged).
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 00:28:28 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/25 "2018-01-21T00:28:28Z")
> [@riking](#):
>
> Enticing registration, versus enticing payment.
>
> The first one is casting a wide net and hurts people coming in from SRPs for dubious benefit (… you get their email address? your “registered users” number goes up?)
>
> The second one has limited scope (people definitely interested in the content) and has concrete benefit for the site (money is exchanged).
I understand, and my point is… regardless, I like the feature. Just because something can be used for dubious reasons doesn’t mean it will. The second one you pointed out is proof of that, and the way Discourse is currently set up will not allow for it to happen.
---
### Author:  [@Mittineague](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Mittineague)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 00:56:24 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/26 "2018-01-21T00:56:24Z")
> [@tetra](#):
>
> the way Discourse is currently set up will not allow for it to happen.
Actually, the way Discourse is set up makes it possible for plugins to do all sorts of things. If this is something you want I think that’s the approach you should look into.
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 01:08:48 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/28 "2018-01-21T01:08:48Z")
> [@Mittineague](#):
>
> Actually, the way Discourse is set up makes it possible for plugins to do all sorts of things. If this is something you want I think that’s the approach you should look into.
Agreed, I’m simply arguing against this logic… all forms of topic visible content is not, is “bait and switch”, that’s nonsense.
I have no problems with developers doing whatever they want, and if they don’t what to support this by default, no problem. I’ll sort myself out.
As a separate question out of curiosity, why is there a “Lounge” area for only trust level 3 set up by default, which no one will ever know about until it magically appears one day? Unless I’m not understanding (which is possible), I’m actually curious as to what that’s about.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 08:47:22 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/30 "2018-01-21T08:47:22Z")
Well, you know you can advertise the presence of a thing, without showing the thing, yes? 😉
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 15:37:40 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/32 "2018-01-21T15:37:40Z")
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Well, you know you can advertise the presence of a thing, without showing the thing, yes? 😉
So what we’re talking about is “degrees” of “advertising”?
Even if we grant that showing topic titles without the content isn’t something that is desirable (which I don’t), what’s the reasoning for not showing the existence of the category at all?
---
### Author:  [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)
#### Post date: [21.Январь.2018 17:19:58 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/33 "2018-01-21T17:19:58Z")
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> 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?
I’m working with several communities that have lots of content that is of interest to only a subset of the community (e.g., mineral rights in a particular state, a society with many geographic and issue sub-groups). They have a need for there to be a bunch of categories that people can know exist, but not have show up in latest. The solution seems to be to use groups to keep them from showing up, but then it’s difficult for people to know that the stuff is there, and having to join a group to see it is cumbersome.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [22.Январь.2018 02:24:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/34 "2018-01-22T02:24:11Z")
Why not use tags in that case? I fail to see why the hard walls of security are needed there.
---
### Author:  [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)
#### Post date: [22.Январь.2018 17:20:04 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/35 "2018-01-22T17:20:04Z")
I think that the solution to the problem (given that the problem is not getting deluged with topics from categories you’ll never care about and not charging for people to see them) is to mute all of the niche categories for new users.
A site and/or category setting for a default watch level for categories could be very useful. For example, you have an Announcements category that you are pretty sure that everyone in your organization should be watching, and you have six regional offices that are of interest only to people in one regional office. Default settings would set new users to watch/mute those categories.
---
### Author:  [@pfaffman](https://meta.discourse.org/u/pfaffman)
#### Post date: [22.Январь.2018 17:22:12 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/36 "2018-01-22T17:22:12Z")
> [@tetra](#):
>
> I can give an example easily. I was a member at [slingshotforum.com](http://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.
Another way to solve this problem is to make those categories read-only for non-supporting members. This solves the problem of people (and search engines) needing to be able to see the stuff. People who see that useful conversation is going on there will want to pay to be able to participate.
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [22.Январь.2018 22:00:16 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/37 "2018-01-22T22:00:16Z")
You’re correct, and I can see that working in some communities. However, I think that it is entirely dependent on the nature of the content. If the content was say, informative in nature… people would obtain the information without ever participating.
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [22.Январь.2018 22:04:58 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/38 "2018-01-22T22:04:58Z")
Another problem with this feature not existing, is for communities that share sensitive content. I want people to know that we are talking about the content, but not have it be indexed on Google or seen to the general community. This is especially true in the field I currently am in.
---
### Author:  [@codinghorror](https://meta.discourse.org/u/codinghorror)
#### Post date: [22.Январь.2018 22:06:24 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/39 "2018-01-22T22:06:24Z")
Simply put up a topic banner announcing the presence of said hidden area. Easy.
---
### Author:  [@tetra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tetra)
#### Post date: [23.Январь.2018 13:35:06 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/40 "2018-01-23T13:35:06Z")
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Simply put up a topic banner announcing the presence of said hidden area. Easy.
So you actually believe that’s easier than throwing out the idea to add more permissions to categories?
(a feature that has been fairly common in forum software as I understand it). You’re not being very logical here.
You’ve been given several examples when asked… instead of trying to offer a workaround, just be honest and say… “it’s my forum software, and I don’t want that feature”, or “you want that feature, go somewhere else”… problem solved.
That would be especially helpful for any future request about this feature since you said:
> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> … this request comes up a fair bit.
---
### Author:  [@Mittineague](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Mittineague)
#### Post date: [23.Январь.2018 19:32:16 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/41 "2018-01-23T19:32:16Z")
I think you are missing the point. Discourse is open source. It is entirely possible to write plugins that work with Core code. Plugins are not work-arounds they are work-withs.
---
### Author:  [@eextra](https://meta.discourse.org/u/eextra)
#### Post date: [26.Апрель.2019 09:37:16 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/42 "2019-04-26T09:37:16Z")
Can I place this banner anywhere it looked like a category on the forum or section?
---
### Author:  [@tohaitrieu](https://meta.discourse.org/u/tohaitrieu)
#### Post date: [19.Август.2019 09:27:06 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/43 "2019-08-19T09:27:06Z")
Этот плагин сломан и не работает с Discourse 2.x.x
---
### Author:  [@bigsmoke](https://meta.discourse.org/u/bigsmoke)
#### Post date: [09.Июнь.2020 15:44:42 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512/44 "2020-06-09T15:44:42Z")
Я просто хотел добавить, что у меня есть сценарий использования этой функции, который не имеет ничего общего с рекламой и монетизацией. Меня интересует эта функция для некоммерческого форума, где люди могут обсуждать деликатные психологические вопросы.
[Previous page](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://meta.discourse.org/t/login-required-to-see-topic-info/78512.md?page=3)