Hi All! (I'll address this collectively for now)
Great points all, and exactly why I wanted to crowd-source the idea. We've a great collective resource in our membership, and lots of people have good ideas. Why not bring them together into a "better" end result? A great way to avoid pitfalls as well. I didn't want to wade in and find I'd unknowingly compromised myself, either!
I agree...if one is to be overt, then the more identifying/linking information the better (so long as a direct location cannot be inferred).
Some further thoughts...
• In regards to fields...at the moment, I think it would be a good idea to have some standard data fields for all to complete (for quick access and scanning and to achieve some degree of standardization) and then leave the rest of the entry "open" for people to add info they think is important. This would achieve both aims: a quick-access ID <--> bike database + further identifying info.
The reason why I think a mix of standard text-form data and, say, photos is important is because Forum guests have different levels of access than do members. Guests cannot see attachments, for example. The registration process is pretty speedy, but it is also screened for spam. It would be nice if someone could simply access the Forum at guest level and quickly access the particulars, say to check a bike they were considering prior to purchase. I think the wider the access, the better. Yes! to More Information, but also Yes! to having the basics be universally available.
• The more info to link owner <--> bike, the less chance of adulterated ownership. This is one of the concerns I had that led to my proposal. I recently read of a case here where someone effectively claimed ownership of property (complete with doctored documents) and the owner had to spend considerable resources proving prior possession. In the end, it came down to photos in family photo album. Well, our gallery is a photo album of sorts, and one we can all look at and see, as can any registered member.
• In the case of multiple Thorn ownership, I don't see why multi-bike info couldn't be included in the same record. Ian, for example, could simply enter all his bikes in one post...or he could choose to do it in several. The latter might be easier in case you sold one, but I think it would work either way. There is one caveat...the date of editing is also logged on each post, but the incept/creation date is noted in each post as well, so that shouldn't be a problem. I do wish there was a way to do this as an online spreadsheet, but I can't see a facile means to do so with Forum software and still keep it on the Forum and make it readily accessible to all.
• I'd like to target this to the lowest-common denominator. Not everyone is computer-facile, so the process needs to be as easy as creating an ordinary post. My initial thought is to consider making the topic sticky so it is easily found (or perhaps even in a separate board) and then include the standard "forms" part in that so it can be easily copied, then cut-and-pasted into each entry, aiding standardization and easing the process (these issues are where the phrase "Oh, what have I done" pass through my mind...).
• I think it is a great idea to make the database/registry a useful database beyond establishing identity <--> ownership, but I'd like to keep discussion to a minimum on the Registry, else it will soon devolve into just another topic and make it harder to use for its intended purpose. Maybe a note saying "Please don't comment on posts in this Board; all discussions should take place elsewhere" sounds awfully authoritative, but I do think this board topic would need to be "clean" and the entries stand alone for it to work well and be useful.
• I think the size designator is part of the serial on all Thorns, but I'm not sure about older models. It was on Sherpa and it is on the Nomad, so I am hopeful this is a Universal.
• Selling a bike on could be handled in a number of ways, but at the moment, it seems the most trouble-free might be for the original owner to simply delete their post (or delete that part of it for those who own multiple Thorns) devoted to that particular bike. Since the Registry is voluntary, the new owner could then decide to participate or not.
• In the event of a theft, what about a separate topic for "Stolen Thorns" with links back to the owner's registry profile? The "Theft/Stolen" profile would contain full details of the disappearance and circumstances/location.
• I think noting the presence and data contained on additional security tags is worthwhile.
• I wouldn't want to include things like the Pitlock code that could somehow be used to leverage a replacement key. That would be like revealing my ring-lock key code. Yes, I have my ownership on-record at AXA, since I ordered a spare key, but I would feel much better if that info weren't Out There in the wild.
• I think a pic of owner <--> bike is worthwhile...that much more info to establish a legitimate link between the two. I see this as ideally located in the "extra information" part of the registration record, to follow the basic standardized info. Since the Registry would be voluntary, people can individually make the decision to include as much or as little as they wish.
• A sticker (as IanW suggested) is not a bad idea! If there were a means for them to be printed and purchased for a reasonable sum, it wouldn't hurt. I'm thinking something like Ian's suggested "STOP THIEF - This bike is Thorn Forum-Registered" followed by the Forum URL or the topic URL. Since this is all voluntary, people could choose to purchase a sticker or not. This is among several ancillary details that could be worked out later, but is secondary to the registry itself.
Thank you all! While I'm happy to forge ahead is all looks good and set this up as a topic, let's keep the discussion going for a bit to see if we can make it "best as possible" prior to establishment. The ideas (both positive and cautionary) being floated are excellent, and if we can spot problems early, they can be much more neatly addressed before launch than after. I'm really interested in any potential pitfalls, as those would need to be addressed first if the idea is to be successfully implemented.
Best,
Dan.
