BBO User Directory

[oscarb]

Is there anywhere, or could there be some master directory of BBO users that would show the same information about that user as if they were logged on? Thanks.

[uday]

There is no such directory today. We could make one easily. I am not sure we should. Opinions ?

[pclayton]

Heck ya!

 

If others can find me on here; why not?

[nickf]

If you do produce such a directory, I'd suggest there's no need to include the field with email addresses. You never know what someone could do with another 140,000 addresses.

 

I get about 120 spam a day, mostly as a result of having my corporate email address on my store website by necessity.

 

nickf

sydney

[Rain]

I'd love such a feature. Will like to have all data, including email addresses...on the off chance that a user I need to contact urgently has a real email address listed.

 

:>

 

Rain

[Dwingo]

I am not sure , if this is a good idea. It wont take long for the spamsters to take the log in ID's and append a yahoo, hotmail, gmail, aol, etc and I am sure many of them will turn to be true e-mail addresses.

 

There should be a compelling value in releasing this directory to the General Public.

[julie5607]

I think this is a great idea - often I would like to be able to look up an acquaintance who I know is a BBO member, but I am not 100% sure of the user name. When I know the id I can add this person to my friend's list and hopefully be there and alerted at some point when he or she logs in. Since there is currently no way to verify an existing user name, I either have to ask around or hope that the person uses a log-in that is the same at another site, both very hit or miss approaches. With 2000-4000 members online most times it is much too clumsy to view all in the lobby and hope to find a person this way.

 

I think the email address objection is a red herring - very few people have actual email addresses in that spot, if someone were to try to put together a spam list from BBO's user directory I doubt 10% of the email addresses would be viable.

 

On the subject of programming changes, I have another request. I have been using all the beta versions as they come out, and I notice that if I upgrade to the beta all of my preferences are kept except for one - a custom color I use for the "auction" yellow, which I find way too bright. So, each time I install an upgrade the first thing I have to do is recreate this more mellow yellow and apply the custom color. Is it possible to have custom color preferences saved with an upgrade as well?

 

Thanks,

 

Julie

[Chamaco]

I like the idea of a Public BBO users Directory.

Perhaps concealing the email looks like a good idea but othrwise, it seems a nice feature :-)

[bearmum]

There is no such directory today. We could make one easily. I am not sure we should. Opinions ?

NO problem with directory BUT I don't like the idea that email addresses be added UNLESS (maybe) folks have no objections having their email addresses freely available :rolleyes:

[ack_hh]

Great idea, but e-mail address is a "no no" of course.

 

Another suggestion: ICQ name/number would

come in handy, in the profile as well as in the directory.

[mpefritz]

How about a directory for people willing to be in it? Each player has the option to be in the directory or not as a checkbox on their profile sheet, with a default of NO.

 

This database then can be searchable by name, country,level, key words in profile, etc... to find the player in question.

 

fritz

[Rain]

Isn't there an incentive to see all other people's profiles, but not belong in it? I think anything done should be made as fair as possible...if you don't want to join directory, shouldn't be able to search.

 

:rolleyes:

rain

[hrothgar]

I doubt that I would ever make use of such a directory.

With this said and done, I have no objection if someone wanted to post one.

[oscarb]

Any movement in the works to have some sort of BBO directory? It can certainly be optional where those that want to subscribe can determine which information is posted.

[hrothgar]

Any movement in the works to have some sort of BBO directory? It can certainly be optional where those that want to subscribe can determine which information is posted.

I've been try to formulate some ideas about Bridge Base Online and the way the community is organized. This issue is actually central to a wide variety of topics ranging from chat to many of the scaling issues that Fred and Uday have raised in the past. I've come up with a couple tentative theories; this thread is as good a place as any to test them.

 

From my perspective, the key insight that we need to recognize is that BBO is a really big place. I would argue that BBO has become so large that it doesn't make sense for individual users to every try to deal with BBO as a totality. The simplest example that I can provide is the following: As I am writing these words, there are slight more than 7,500 players in the main lobby. I have the option to look at a list of all 7,500 names. However, I can't think of a single good reason why I would want to do so. In a similar fashion, BBO could provide a directory listing the entire BBO membership (I'm guessing that this would be the size of phone book) Who in their right mind would want to wade through this type of list? I suspect that Fred and Uday may have reached a similar conclusion. 10-12 months ago there were a lot discussions about scaling issues. Fred suggested that possibility of partitioning BBO in to a number of separate instances as one one way to deal with the burgeoning user base.

 

I'm more interested in a variant of this same idea. Rather than formally partitioning BBO into a series of distinct realms, what if we simply masked a lot of the information from individuals. Let's eliminate the very notion of the main lobby and replace it with a combination of search and messaging.

 

When I say “Search”, I argue that individuals should be able to direct a query to the main server and get a listing of players who fit given characteristic. For example, I might want to ask the server to provide me with a list of all players who are defined as my “friend”. Alternatively, I could ask for all players who have “Hamman” as part of their name, all “Stars” or everyone who has “WJ2005” in their profile. The server will necessarily take a hit any time that a player makes a search query. However, there is no longer any need for each and every clients to maintain a synchronized master list with the server. I suspect that this type of query based model should decrease the load on the server. (There is always the option to synchronize certain types of data search. I can see arguments that it would be useful to ensure that the listing of tables with open seats was updated in real time)

 

When I say “Messaging” I am echoing some earlier suggestions from Sigi about leveraging an IRC type chat model. At any given point in time, an individual can belong to multiple chat channels using a standard “opt in” model. This chat system can be distributed across multiple servers while looking seamless to end users.

 

I still need to spend a bunch of time thinking these issues through. (In particular, I think that it would be useful to develop a task based model in which we could define all the different ways that people use BBO to achieve a given end). Regardless, comments are always welcome.

[TrialBid]

A rare point at which I agree with the ACBL is the requirement to have both players' full names on the convention cards. Similarly, I believe, if you play on BBO we have some right to know who you are--although it may be that this requirement should be (and sometimes in a way, already, is: i. e., "No Privates") enforced by tournament organizers and not by BBO itself.

 

In any case, I think it's sensible to have a searchable directory with names and IDs, at least. It also makes sense that from that list, hovering should reveal the profile--whether the user is online or not. Many have their email. A few pros, wanting to drum up business, also give their phone numbers. We already choose how much we are comfortable disclosing. Whether we are online or not shouldn't matter.

[asdfg2k]

There are scaling issues involved, even with Richard's suggestion, certainly with Trial's. We are already at a point where comments are obliterated because the number of bytes to populate that information is limited. Having every single BBO member's profile available seems like a disaster waiting to happen if it isn't regulated. Richard's ideas on how to regulate seem spot on.

 

I would like to see a hierarchical prioritization (with a default, of course, so those who don't want to be bothered will still have a functional system) of:

 

Profiles of friends

Comments of friends

Profiles of those identified as belonging to user-defined categories

Comments of those identified as belonging to user-defined categories

Profiles of those who satisfy a special search

Comments of those who satisfy a special search

 

All of the above can be filtered on online status or not, at user discretion. At a minimum, the special search should be able to toggle between online and not in addition to other criteria, of course.

 

I would love to see BBO maintain an ability to append to the comments field a system of some sort. Whether it is the current cc or an FD file, either would be great. Maybe a configurable option to have that information automatically loaded if you sit down with that person as a partner. I wouldn't mind it if this information is stored locally. The key is that instead of having to go dig out the information, let the system load it automatically if the user has selected that option in their own options selection screen.

 

How about BBO keeping track of the last time that two people played together and display that as part of the profile? Or not, in a user configurable option.

 

How about BBO keeping a running track of cumulative results for a given partnership. This would be an additional piece of information available with a profile.

 

The above comments are based on the fact that hard drive space is cheap, both at the server and for the clients.

[sceptic]

I think that idea sucks, I use other id's when I want some anonimity

[barmar]

Does this directory need to be in the BBO client? It seems to me that it could easily be on a web server. OKbridge has a way to search the membership list on their web site, this seems like the obvious way to do it. It could still be accessed from the BBO client -- it makes use of IE internally for a number of things, like when you pay for MB$.

[uday]

It could easily be done on a web page .

 

It wouldnt take long (hours, not days) to implement a simple username lookup. Maybe I'll try it.

[Elianna]

And having it be opt-in (or opt-out) would probably make many people happy.

[bid_em_up]

As long as we're at it......

 

How come there isnt a place on the forum for your BBO ID, if your forum ID happens to be different from the BBO id?

[oscarb]

Uday, any update on this request? Thanks.