Question for IV members

M

msh626

Registered Users (C)
Why does IV restrict access to some of the topics unless one is a member? I do not see that restriction on this website or murthy.com

IMHO, if the motivation is to get people to register then your approach won't work. It turns people off - especially people like me. People who can be useful to IV in many ways. This restrictionist approach should be reconsidered. Surely, you have heard of open source. And is it not hard to suppress information on the Internet?

Kudos, though to the job that IV is doing.
 
In open source, changes made by contributors are peer reviewed by select group before incorporation into final product (else people could sabotage it).
 
I never thought about it. You are right I dont see any reason behind this. This should be open to all.



msh626 said:
The final product is still available to everybody - *without* exception.
Click to expand...
 
msh626 said:
The final product is still available to everybody - *without* exception.
Click to expand...

Alright, I mis-read what you wrote. I thought you meant censorship of comments. What I said is then irrelevant. I need to sleep more.

I do agree with you that people should not be forced to register to view posts.
 
msh626,

Very valid question. I do agree with you that forcing people to register might turn off a few people but we have found the benifits of this policy to far outweigh it's deficiencies.

For one registration in our website is absolutely free to anyone and it takes only a couple of minutes to register.

Typically when we saw the usage of our site previously, for every registered user using it, there were 3 others who were not registered but still using it repeatedly. Now after we started implementing this policy, our membership has increased from 1300 to nearly 3000 now. The higher our membership, the more impact we are able to make when we discuss it with lawmakers and media.

We see that people are more involved after they have registered in our website. Previously only 300 odd people were sending each webfax. Now that number has increased to nearly 700-800. Our registered members also get our newsletter which makes them aware of the happenings and also helps them to participate in activities like calling the senators or faxing them.

The other factor is also that we felt that registration is something that turns off our opponents more than our supporters. So some of the threads like the amendments threads would be better kept only to our supporters by requiring registration. Again this is not a fool proof method but just goes that extra bit in keeping out our opponents.

Typically in the high skilled immigrant community, people just want to know what is happening without wanting to exert any effort towards helping the effort. We just hope that by becoming our member, we will make it a little easier to get them to do something.
 
I can very well understand your motivation. It is true that many would rather sit on the fence than participate. Everyone wants the fruit but nobody wants to tend to the tree that produces the fruit.

Yet, information should be free. If one want's to spread light, does not cover the candle, instead it should be right where everyone can see it. If you cover it, a few will get close enough to get the light but the majority won't. You may have 1700 additional members but then you do not know how many you have turned off. 10? 100? 2483? Bottom line: Let people decide. If they wish to join, your doors are open. If they don't, that should be fine too. People should have the choice of membership.

There are always aways around it, though few would do it. Thomas has a link to all amendments. Granted legal language is hard to read, but for the determined few that is a non-issue. Organizations like NumbersUSA have enough lawyers on their rolls and they get their stuff from Thomas, I bet.

And one more thing: It is better to have a hundred motivated folks than a thousand half-motivated fence sitters. There is less chaos and more gets done. Again this is about choices, and IV is free to do as it pleases.

In similar vein, the moderators of this forum could decide to turn off all external links to all websites and all postings that are advertising about IV. After all, it is the same principle. On murthy.com you you guys don't post, do you? I hope that you bring this question up before your core team. I have seen an IV member, question this too. If that happens, increase in IV membership will nosedive.

Again, IV seems a well-intentioned organization and has accomplished much in a short time. Great going. Please accept my complements.
 
Thanks for understanding our reasons. The bulk of our forum threads and web pages are open to everyone. There are totally 538 threads in Immigration Voice, out of which only 13 threads are present in the members only forum. So the unregistered members still have access to 98% of our threads and 100% of our main web pages.

In IV, we do not have policy to ban external links. So I am not sure about your reference to banning external links. We're very much thankful to Immigration Portal and Mr Rajeev for their support and the less said about other lawyers who have other reasons to not support us.

While information is free, we at the same time need to balance it with the need to urge people to act on issues that affect all of us including the person whom we're asking to register.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top