Notification for users not logged in
Brought to you by:
canajun2eh,
yalnifj
Menu
▾
▴
I think it would be helpful to have some text appearing on the Indi List page saying something like, "By the way, you're not logged in so you won't see all of the names." Reminding people if they have not registered on happen to be logged out, why they are not finding someone. There isn't a whole lot of other stuff on that page so there's definitely room.
I'm sure it'd easy enough to figure out, just add a bit of code: if !is_logged_in then echo "by the way" sort of thing, but I'd be interested in seeing what people have written to do this. I'm sure someone has.
If it sounds like a good idea I'll post it as a feature request. And if it's already a feature that I've missed, well, thanks for pointing it out!
There used to be a message like this, but it was was taken out deliberately.
A change of policy last year means that we simply don't mention the existence of private data, rather than saying that it exists.
I think I'm not the only one who uses the existence of private data an an incentive to request membership.
Since I have to approve such requests, I'm not worried about sleazeballs sneaking in. And if one did sneak in, he/she would only get data on close relatives of who he pretended to be. Maybe I should demand some proof of identity.... :-)
Since I'm one of the fellows that show names of the living, it does show a message to guests. Something like: "This information is private and cannot be viewed". I guess it's kind of pointless to pretend that there is no information on the living in that case :)
Maybe it's only with "Show names" set to 'public' like I have, but I definitely get the "This information is private and cannot be shown" message, so the existence of private data isn't really a secret. I think I will just recreate what used to be there.
If it's in a previous version, I'll look for the code. How far back? 4.1.7?
Anton,
A simple, general, message that says "You are not logged in - there may be more individuals" would be fine.
The problem with the previous behaviour was that it gave the *exact* number of private individuals.
Suppose I have 50 ROACH individuals in my tree. 30 dead, 20 living. A visitor see a list of 30 indis, plus a message saying "20 more private indis". Not really a problem.
But suppose one of those ROACH indis is visible to admin only. Perhaps cousin Mary had an illigitimate child, put it up for adoption, and never told her husband. The sort of information that you might like to keep private - even among close family.
Now, suppose my sister logs in. She would expect to see all indis. Instead she would see "49 ROACH's, 1 private".
She would immediately ask me "I'm logged in - why can't I see this other ROACH. Who are they?" Futher hunting around for other lists to find out what else shows one private person could, by elimination, show that this one private person was born in a certain year, in a certain place.
Now if cousin Mary happened to be the only person living in this place in this year, you've pretty much given the game away.
Makes sense to me. However, my 4.2.1 install does say "4 hidden" or whatever when the user is not logged in and searches by surname. That said, there seem to be some aspects of authentication that are cached even when I am logged out. I found a living record the other day while logged out, but couldn't do so again today.
The "You are not logged in - there may be more individuals" thing is really what I was thinking of.
It looks like I want this:
$logged_in = PGV_USER_ID;
if (!$logged_in) {
echo("<p>Since you are not logged in...</p>");
}
I can't just say !PGV_USER_ID, can I? Is there a better variable to use?
<<I can't just say !PGV_USER_ID, can I?>>
Yes.
if (!PGV_USER_ID) {
echo 'whatever';
}
Works perfectly. In famlist.php, indilist.php and medialist.php, I added the following right after the H2 header:
if (!PGV_USER_ID) {
echo '<p class="center">Note: you are not logged in, so privacy restrictions keep you from seeing all of the records.</p>';
}
When I get a bit more motivated I'll add that phrase to my German and English language files.
"A change of policy last year means that we simply don't mention the existence of private data, rather than saying that it exists. ... The problem with the previous behaviour was that it gave the *exact* number of private individuals."
My 4.2.1 does show the exact number of hidden individuals, when I go Lists, Individuals - All - All Total individuals : 126
Hidden : 139
Statistics block says 265 total INDIs.
Is this something different?
I'm removing these, as and when I come across them.