# Sito in modalità solo staff. Non è necessario mostrare registrazione o accesso
**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/site-in-staff-only-mode-no-need-to-show-signup-or-login/408703
**Category:** UX
**Tags:** fixed
**Created:** [28 Luglio 2026, 11:53am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/site-in-staff-only-mode-no-need-to-show-signup-or-login/408703 "2026-07-28T11:53:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 6
### Author:  [@zogstrip](https://meta.discourse.org/u/zogstrip)
#### Post date: [28 Luglio 2026, 4:29pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/site-in-staff-only-mode-no-need-to-show-signup-or-login/408703/6 "2026-07-28T16:29:39Z")
Grazie @EricGT per i tuoi feedback 👍 Concordo che dovremmo fare del nostro meglio per non frustrare gli utenti anonimi con CTA che non possono eseguire.
Questo sarà corretto da
>
>
> Previously, a site in read only or staff only mode still offered
> anonymous visit…ors every way in: the header "Sign Up" button, the signup
> call to action at the end of a topic, the create account link on the
> login page, and the server-rendered header — including the one on the
> read only error page itself. Account creation is blocked in both modes,
> so all of them were dead ends. The banner made it worse by describing
> what members lose (replying, likes) rather than what an anonymous
> visitor is actually unable to do.
>
> This change gates the JS \`canSignUp\` getter and its Ruby twin
> \`can\_sign\_up?\` on read only state, which covers every signup entry point
> at once. \`canSignUp\` had to drop its \`@computed\` decorator to do so:
> with no dependent keys it cached permanently, so the new term would have
> been evaluated once at boot and then frozen — leaving the button visible
> if read only mode started later, and hidden long after it ended.
>
> The "Log In" button deliberately stays, because staff can still log in
> during staff only mode. Anonymous visitors now get banner copy naming
> signup and login instead, a refused login says only staff can log in
> rather than claiming login is disabled outright, and the email and code
> login forms show that inline instead of a generic "an error occurred"
> dialog.
>
> It also fixes a pre-existing blank page. Both \`/login\` and \`/signup\`
> aborted the transition when read only, which on a direct URL load left
> the application template unrendered — and with it the dialog holder, so
> the explanation never appeared either. They now redirect home when there
> is no route to stay on, and keep aborting when there is.
>
> Meta ref: /t/408703
---
_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/site-in-staff-only-mode-no-need-to-show-signup-or-login/408703)._