Thanks Paul, a post very much "on the spot"! I wish (for the nth time) that the admins would notice this thread!
Why is it STILL possible for people to find us on the interactive map???
Sort:
Jun 27, 2010
0
#143
paul211 wrote:
The stats about 7 out of 2 million members is not only inaccurate but wrong and has no weight at all in interpreting the results of the participants. Not only because there are not 2 million members on this site as the numbers will show in a month from now or so, around June 27th 2010, when accounts are merged but primarily because we are now allowed only 100 pages of posts which is about 2,000 posts maximum.
So the logical reference to the number of posts written on any topic should be measured against the max of 2,000 posts allowable to obtain a statistically measurable and meaningful confidence level or interval and a margin of error. This goes for any and all forums and posts.
If chess.com management does not want to recognize this limitation, then no posts are of any value statistically.
Now 7 people in favor is not a statistically a valid sufficient number.
However statistics is not always the answer to any poll.
The point debated here is about privacy of personal information.
And what if the topic contains a survey (or more than one)? Assume each of the 2,000 posts contains a survey and 1,000 respondents participate in each survey. This comfortably exceeds the 2,000 limit you have just proposed.
Jun 27, 2010
0
#144
His assessment that only 7 people care was so obviously bogus even to a 5th grader, I didn't even want to get into that.
And more totally off the point remarks. Facebook and all others only use information that I have chosen to share with others. I can even make myself "unsearchable" should I choose...so I don't understand your small town point. I've never seen this information presented for the public to use.
Jun 28, 2010
0
#146
AfafBouardi wrote: His assessment that only 7 people care was so obviously bogus even to a 5th grader, I didn't even want to get into that.
My dear Afaf, by all means perform your own analysis. At the point I counted, 7 members had declared in support of changing the map, 3 were against. 24 were neither sufficiently for it nor against it to express a clear opinion. Those are the facts.
The notion of majority has been mentioned several times. It is usual to divide the number of 'votes' by either the sample size (34) or the whole population (1,990,631 Members or 345,534 Active Members). No matter how I crunch the numbers, I can't find a majority for your crusade.
AfafBouardi wrote:
And more totally off the point remarks. Facebook and all others only use information that I have chosen to share with others. I can even make myself "unsearchable" should I choose
Sweetest afaf, as others have pointed out, you haven't made yourself unsearchable on Facebook. On the contrary, you again use your full name there, a photograph and you cite a city of some 1,500000 million souls as your base. Clearly you are not personally trying to remain anonymous.
Here on chess.com, if one does not want to be found, one can adopt the same strategy as for any other web site: don't use your real name, don't use a photograph, don't list any personal information and don't discuss any personal information.
Since you have chosen to share so much information, it weakens your case that the website has publicised one item of data.
AfafBouardi wrote:
...so I don't understand your small town point. I've never seen this information presented for the public to use.
Afaf, My point was simply that I can guess a series of small towns, enter those names individually into a Facebook search, and home in on people in that way.
Jun 28, 2010
0
#147
Visitor maps are becoming more ubiquitous ...
The Number Two: VisitorMaps
Another blog visitor’s location monitoring tool is from VisitorMap.org which is also a free service. It is different from ClustrMaps as it shows the location of all the visitors to your site in the last 24 hours. It also provides a facility to users to customize the map style, map size, visitor marker & color for the visitor markers.
Why Visitor Maps?
Visitor Maps are quite helpful to:
- Know your visitors: Knowing who are your websites and blog readers.
- Target your content: Helps targeting your website and blog content ,adjust your content, your pitch, or your advertising according to the specific set of visitors.
- Show off your community: Developing a reader’s community based on continents.
- Automatic: clicks optional: Each visitors to your site is automatically counted properly. Just visiting your site is sufficient. Of course, visitors can optionally click on the little thumbnail map widget and be taken to a large world map view for additional detail.
- Speedy, scalable: Knowing the numbers of visits from a specific part of the world.
Read more: http://inforids.com/visitors-maps-geographically-visualize-locate-visitors/#ixzz0s8FYYxzA
Jun 28, 2010
0
#148
e.g. http://tools.digitalpoint.com/geovisitors.php
Soon, every Tom's Dick & Harry's blog will display one.
Yes, but are those points individually identifiable? Can you find associated usernames or do they republish the IP addresses? If so, and if done so without the users' express consent, then they are also gross violations of the privacy of the visitors.
It's important to make the distinction between sanitized data and that which infringes upon individual rights to privacy.
Jun 28, 2010
0
#150
TheGrobe wrote:
Yes, but are those points individually identifiable? Can you find associated usernames or do they republish the IP addresses? If so, and if done so without the users' express consent, then they are also gross violations of the privacy of the visitors.
It's important to make the distinction between sanitized data and that which infringes upon individual rights to privacy.
I have no way of knowing. As Visitor Maps pop up on more and more websites, some of them may well choose to identify individual users.
The Visitor Map (interactive member map) on chess.com is serving (at least) two different functions:
- as a item of marketing collateral, it doesn't need to identify individual users - merely their distribution
- as a directory for individual members showing you your friends and your opponents (as well as all members online), it needs to identify the individual points - otherwise it would be pointless.
I'd agree that for the first function it is acceptable to use IP addresses provided neither they, nor the individual accounts they correspond to are identified.
For the second, however, it's imperative that users explicitly agree to having their location published via IP if this is the desired functionality. This principle of opting in to having information about you shared in a manner such as this is a common premise that underlies almost allof the privacy legislation I've ever encountered. I can't help but be disappointed that chess.com's functionality doesn't comply with this.
TheGrobe wrote:
I'd agree that for the first function it is acceptable to use IP addresses provided neither they, nor the individual accounts they correspond to are identified.
For the second, however, it's imperative that users explicitly agree to having their location published via IP if this is the desired functionality. This principle of opting in to having information about you shared in a manner such as this is a common premise that underlies almost allof the privacy legislation I've ever encountered. I can't help but be disappointed that chess.com's functionality doesn't comply with this.
I fully agree! The ranting of artfizz (not to speak of ilikeflags) does in no way remove the basic rights of the member/customer to judge and decide what info will be made public and what not
So I see 'everyone else is doing it' has now entered the realm of respectability as an argument, at least when backed up by figures. Yay humanity.
Jun 28, 2010
0
#154
Phobetrix wrote: ... ranting ...
1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence.
Since when did it become 'ranting' to address each point of debate and try to make rational counter-arguments?
Jun 28, 2010
0
#155
Phobetrix wrote: The ranting of artfizz (not to speak of ilikeflags) does in no way remove the basic rights of the member/customer to judge and decide what info will be made public and what not
What about the basic rights of chess.com to establish their own Terms of Service (including a Privacy Policy)? As far as I can make out, chess.com are complying with their TOS.
Jun 28, 2010
0
#156
theoreticalboy wrote: So I see 'everyone else is doing it' has now entered the realm of respectability as an argument, at least when backed up by figures. Yay humanity.
That is the way de facto standards work.
I'm not convinced that this is in compliance with chess.com's stated privacy policy:
http://www.chess.com/legal.html#privacypolicy
Privacy Policy
Put simply: we will NEVER share your information with anyone!
...
Chess.com automatically receives and records information on our server logs from your browser, including your IP address, Chess.com cookie information, and the page you request. Chess.com uses information for the following general purposes: to customize the advertising and content you see, fulfill your requests for products and services, improve our services, contact you, conduct research, and provide anonymous reporting for internal and external clients.
...
(Emphasis on the word "anonymous" is mine)
Even if it were, though, I'd wager that it's not in compliance with Canadian privacy legislation, and likely that of many other countries as well.
Framing this as a matter of preference misses the point -- it is, in fact, a matter of fundamental rights to privacy.
Jun 28, 2010
0
#158
TheGrobe wrote:
I'm not convinced that this is in compliance with chess.com's stated privacy policy:
http://www.chess.com/legal.html#privacypolicy
Privacy PolicyPut simply: we will NEVER share your information with anyone!
...
Chess.com automatically receives and records information on our server logs from your browser, including your IP address, Chess.com cookie information, and the page you request. Chess.com uses information for the following general purposes: to customize the advertising and content you see, fulfill your requests for products and services, improve our services, contact you, conduct research, and provide anonymous reporting for internal and external clients.
...
(Emphasis on the word "anonymous" is mine)
Even if it were, though, I'd wager that it's not in compliance with Canadian privacy legislation, and likely that of many other countries as well.
Framing this as a matter of preference misses the point -- it is, in fact, a matter of fundamental rights to privacy.
I'm clicking on the link Privacy Policy by TRUSTe at the bottom of the page to see their most recent Privacy Policy.
Regarding potential conflict with national privacy legislation: that would need more investigation.
Viewers of that map are third parties: They're not chess.com, and they're not me.
Every website you visit has access to your IP address and your GeoIP location, just as chess.com does. For most websites which process this information, it is too valuable to simply display it; instead they use it to analyse their visitor demographic or to customise what they display.
The only sites on which it would make sense to display it are social networking sites. These are predicated on the notion of directories which you use to locate fellow members.
Facebook lets you search by name and location. I can enter the name of small town and it will show me the members from there.
Skype lets you search by Country, state, City, Language, Gender and Age range.
Friends Reunited shows you all the people in the school class you claim to have belonged to.
Such sites as these don't display maps but they make equivalent information available, in my view.
You miss the point. All of those sites, each and every one of them, only displays information that you manually enter by choice. This is not the case here.
Facebook does not obtain your birth certificate from the government and broadcast the information to everybody without telling you in advance.
Skype doesn't make GeoIP available, just manual locations; all of the information displayed, bar number of contacts, is manually entered and, mostly, optionally private.
Friends Reunited is actually designed purely for people searching for others from their schools and such, but still doesn't force you to disclose anything without indication. Lying would be pointless, yes, but it is a site developed specifically to find people. It is why users sign up. It would be very difficult to do so without displaying school information. Chess.com? Chess site. There's no implication of any strength that it would display location without at least a warning.