Support

General background
Each member in your database has a personal webpage - so-called 'member profile page'. This page can be made accessible to other people on your website - and they can find and access it either via a Member directory or from a post/comment/reply on a forum or blog page made by that member.

Access to this page can be turned on or off by the administrator - and then adjusted for some individual member records - by administrator and by member himself.
Furthermore, administrator can set the default settings for each field - which apply to all new records.

Change in version 2.33

In the past, each field had two settings: Public access / No access. If access was set to Public by administrator, each member could change it to No Access. If it was set to No access, members could not change it to be Public access.

Two frequent requests we were receiving:

1) One more level of access: Members access. For example, a member might make his email address hidden from public but accessible to members. 

2) Ability for the administrator to set the default setting on more cautious side - but enable members to change it afterwards.

These requests have been addressed in version 2.33.

Now Administrator can set default access for the whole record as Show/Do not show and for each field as Public/Members/No access.

This is automatically applied to all new member records

Each member can go to his member profile and change access for his record, whatever the default setting.

During the 2.33 upgrade we have converted all existing records according to existing admin settings and member settings.

One consequence of this change is that Advanced search in the member directory now lists all the fields (previously fields set by admin to No Access were excluded) - since each member can now potentially enable this field for public access. (And search would only be conducted on record who did enable those fields).

Open questions 

We got feedback from some clients that they do not like this change. (E.g. see this thread)

Their preference is that if administrator set certain access level for a field, members should only be able to limit it further:

Admin sets   -> Member can set to

Public access -> Public/Members/Nobody

Member access->Members/Nobody

Nobody -> <can't be changed by member> 

The problem is that we do have clients who have requested the ability to default to 'No access' and let each member change it afterwards.

We would appreciate any input and feedback so that we can consider tuning this further in our future versions.

I agree that admin should be able to set the widest level of access for any given field and members should only be able to limit it further.

I agree that we should be able to distinquish between data that lists personal contact information that has sensitivity and data about each member that the group needs to function and administer its policies.  Some of the data should be controlled by the member - some of the data, while specific to each member, should only be controlled by the organization.  For example, we have "juried members" that must submit samples of their work and pass a peer review before they can claim this distinction.  Can you imagine if each member could adjust that field?  We want to control what levels can view the field and we want to control who can change the field.

As far as the personal information - each group needs to decide what level it wants to encourage their members to participate at - what is mandatory and what is optional.  For example, if we are going to show a member roster at the members level, we need 100% of the names in the roster - we should be able to set the name as mandatory and only the addresses, email, etc as optional. 

I'm not sure I'm making complete sense here - but at the members level or admin level, you HAVE to be able to conduct group business. 

RE: "The problem is that we do have clients who have requested the ability to default to 'No access' and let each member change it afterwards."
I'm not getting where this becomes an issue. I understand shutting off info at the public level at the discretion of the member - but if the group is encouraging public level access, then they should not be shutting that info off, but simply allowing the member to do so . . .
Perhaps their problem is missing/bad info in the fields that they don't want to show?
but that should not control the base decision I don't think . . .