40+?

[Vetinari]

I went into my profile and found I could only list my age as 40+

It feels a little bit ageist. I understand 13-18 is important, but above that, why do younger people get smaller ranges, then the older you are, the bigger the gap, right up to the final one which is 40+

At 48, am I so unimaginably old that I will be in the same age bracket until I'm 90?

Dear staff, please consider us old fogies and give us a chance to be more specific!

[Joal 555]

@Vetinari Firstly, welcome back! It's great to see you around again!

 

7 minutes ago, Vetinari said:

At 48, am I so unimaginably old

 

I am unimaginably older

Of course, you can still show your precise date of birth on your profile (as you have done) which confirms your exact age, but I assume your point is that the age range is the one that most people will see as it appears next to every post that you make.

That being said, I don't have any strong feelings on the topic, but it will be interesting to hear what others think.

[Vetinari]

I'm surprised it annoys me, but it does. I guess if I'm chatting to someone, it's nice to know whether they are 42 or 82.

I realise that 1) they might be lying and 2) they might choose not to disclose their age at all, but it's also... well I feel it's kind of dismissive. As if my age doesn't matter because I'm too old to be interesting. 

I'm also becoming quite feminist in my old age. Discrimination annoys me. Who would have thought it!

[Hedgehog]

Vetinari! I't so nice to see you again!  Also - I don't like those age-ranges at all. Of course, it makes sense for the teens; and maybe for the twens as well - it's still an age where most people are looking for their place in life. But then? 30+ would be enough, okay? Really - I'm already afraid of the 40+ thing. 

[zneeze]

Even though I am not in this age bracket, that seems dismissive to me, too. Vetinari makes very good points! I don't know if this would be feasible, but could it be arranged to allow you to choose a decade of ages (41-50, 31-40) OR have the option to set it to your precise age as seen on your profile OR leave it as something like 40+ or not telling? I still don't know why we had to switch to these age ranges at all, and as it was pointed out, they seem more arbitrary the older you get.

[bloom]

Here's a thought: The age ranges suck, weren't a solution to the problem we were asking to be solved, are a pile of hot garbage, and we should go back to form-fillable age because nobody wanted them to begin with.

[Vetinari]

10 minutes ago, Junia said:

Here's a thought: The age ranges suck, weren't a solution to the problem we were asking to be solved, are a pile of hot garbage, and we should go back to form-fillable age because nobody wanted them to begin with.

Succinct and to the point, as ever Junia! I like zneeze's suggestion too though.

But tell me this. Have I just jumped in feet first to a whole can 'o worms? It does feel a bit squelchy underfoot!

 

[bloom]

1 minute ago, Vetinari said:

Have I just jumped in feet first to a whole can 'o worms?

I don't think so! It's a conversation worth having again I think, because I genuinely don't think anybody is happy with the age ranges, immaterial of whether or not we address the conversation that led to them in the first place. That was all about whether or not we should have a "not telling" field for ages, in order for people to know the ages of people they're taking to. Something got grossly lost in translation and we ended up with age ranges AND a "not telling" field, which led to nobody being satisfied with the solution.

Welcome back, by the way! Nice to see you again.

[Vetinari]

20 minutes ago, hedgehog said:

Really - I'm already afraid of the 40+ thing. 

Don't be afraid, lovely Hedgehog. It's not so bad!

[Vetinari]

2 minutes ago, Junia said:

Welcome back, by the way! Nice to see you again

You too! All of you in fact. And thanks for commenting.

OOooooh! A dancing banana emoticon. Who knew??????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vetinari]

At least... I hope it's a banana.

Oh dear. Threadjacking my own thread already. Some things never change!

[Chanel_no5]

24 minutes ago, Vetinari said:

As if my age doesn't matter because I'm too old to be interesting. 

Side note but you know my stance on the matter...  

Take it from the woman who waited to fill in the age range field until she turned 31 because she'd rather be in the 31-40 than the 25-30.  

Also, I'm so happy to see you back here again, Vet! I've missed you so much!  

 

[Vetinari]

1 minute ago, Chanel_no5 said:

Also, I'm so happy to see you back here again, Vet! I've missed you so much!  

Oh! Me too!  

[Sitruuna]

And I here I've been thinking I could maybe add the age range to my info if there was a less specific option for me because I don't want to specify whether I am over or under 25, lol. Less specific I have to be the happier I am (even though I DID make my full birthdate visible in my profile a few days ago and even though you have to actually go to the profile page to see it I feel really exposed, lol). But I do understand not everyone likes it the same way. If you could freely fill it as you see fit (be a single number or a range or "in my 20s/30s/[what ever]" that would be great.

[bloom]

4 minutes ago, Sitruuna said:

If you could freely fill it as you see fit (be a single number or a range or "in my 20s/30s/[what ever]" that would be great.

I think this would be a really good middle ground - make it form fillable but allow more characters in it so we can elaborate if we want to.

[Oolia]

Just jumping in to agree. 31-40 also seems like a pretty wide gap for me, and I'm not ready to take the leap right now  I haven't even bothered to update mine since I crossed over to 31. I can't imagine having to choose "40+" if I'm in my 40s...

If I could put my actual age or whatever range I want, that'd be ideal.

[Icarus Rex]

PS: Welcome back, Vet! Hope you've been well! I know you're supposed to save the "PS" for the end, but this really couldn't wait.

Anyway, I think it's reasonable to be annoyed; making the final age bracket "40+" certainly sounds like the fetish forum equivalent of a senior discount. I've never really bought the reasons for obfuscating one's age online in the first place, but since the option to "not tell" is as intact as ever... I'd vote for a blank field over these demographic brackets any day. If it's not mandatory to say how old you are either way, at least letting people type whatever they want would allow for some flavor.  And, like Sitruuna pointed out, I think that a lot of people who are uncomfortable stating their exact age would be more willing to disclose a range if they were able to dictate the parameters of that range-- "early 30s" vs. the pre-determined "31-40", for instance).

[Blah!?]

I still remember when this change was first implemented, and I doubt it's a secret that I didn't think it was a good idea back then either. Anyway, I think it's been long enough now that we really should recognize that this doesn't really make a lot of sense. The age field on profiles has actually changed a couple times, but the previous and most well-known iteration was basically this:

You had to have something in your age field, but it didn't actually have to be an age. It could be "00" or "old" or some other short word. You just couldn't leave it empty.

When the age range was implemented, the issue people were talking about was that ability to not put in an actual age despite the field being required. That's how age ranges got brought up in the first place. There were a lot of people at the time who were very opposed to having to show their actual ages, so the age ranges were introduced to give them an option to at least obfuscate it. My issue, and I suspect the issue that a lot of other people had, was the inclusion of the "not telling" option. In no uncertain terms, being able to choose "not telling" completely defeats the entire purpose of what this change was supposed to solve in the first place. We have no added security, as members can choose "not telling" and lie about their age verbally, or even simpler than that, there's nothing stopping them from just choosing a range that doesn't include their actual age. The only thing this change has done is block people who are actually okay with showing their exact age, and force people into age groups that they might not want to be part of.

Basically what I'm saying is if we're not going to force everyone to put their actual age on their profile, there's absolutely no reason not to go back to the old system. That way, people can put in their actual age if they want, they can put in "20s" or "30s" and so on if they want, and they can put in something like "00" if they want. Like I said above, the current range system is simply more restrictive than the old one but with no additional benefits, to security or otherwise. I'm pretty much beyond trying to argue for 100% required exact ages at this point since we established a long time ago that it's not going to happen, but this range thing is simply not an improvement.

[Anonymouse]

I agree, it always seemed a little weird and dismissive to me to just pile everyone older than 40 into the same category. But like Junia said, there's a lot of issues with the current age range system.

To echo everyone else - it's very nice you see you around again! I remember you being one of the "adults" when I was a youngin here and I got concerned when I checked your profile a few months back and saw that it had been years since you logged in. I always assume that something happened and it was sad to think that. Glad you're well and back to participating!

[Dusty15]

Haven't spoken to the rest of the staff so this isn't 'official' but no one has ever voiced an issue with the 40+ range before to my knowledge. Happy to consider and discuss further specifics for that. I think the impetus at the time was a fear that anyone over 60 would perhaps feel disinclined to list their actual age for fear of being judged as 'too old' or 'an old perv' or something, so by lumping anyone over 40 together, there was essentially a "full grown adult" category that didn't get too specific (though as someone who will be 40 in less than I decade, I can understand that perhaps no one ever feels like a 'full grown adult'). As it has been pointed out, there's always the option to list your specific age in your profile.

The age range thing was debated and discussed and heavily debated again and again both by members and by the staff. What we came up with is a compromise, and compromises are rarely perfect. There is no perfect way for this Forum to exist in some of the ways that have been suggested without starting over from scratch and wiping out over a decade of history and posts. Decisions were made at the beginning and discussions continue on and on among the Staff in an attempt to figure out ways to make things work here. I cannot repeat enough that these changes we've made over time were not arbitrary or made without intense discussion and thought. 

As I said above, if someone has a suggestion for ways to better delineate age ranges, we're happy to discuss. The reason they were implemented was because there was a greater push to have people list their age and because there were also many members who felt uncomfortable with listing specific birthdates and/or ages, we implemented a range in hopes that more people would be forthcoming about their demographic. Prior to the ranges, there was a blank field but the default was 0 and many people simply left it at that or forgot to update it as they aged. With the range, the majority of new registrations coming in choose a range and therefore there's more transparency about the general age group of the person you're talking to, which is what was requested when the change to ranges was originally discussed. 

[Blah!?]

For the sake of thoroughness I just went through the old thread when this change was originally discussed and implemented. I'm not going to go over the entire thing again, but here are some key points:

The majority of people were okay with the idea of age ranges. 

It was never fully decided how they would be broken up, but most people were okay with age ranges in theory. Members who were in disagreement with the idea of the thread were more opposed to making ages mandatory than making it a range selection.

The "not telling" option came out of nowhere. 

One day the change suddenly dropped on us, and while it was mostly what had been discussed in the thread prior, the "not telling" option was never talked about publicly before implementation. I suppose it could be argued that those against making ages mandatory were in favor of a "not telling" option, but it was never discussed specifically.

A lot of people were immediately opposed to the changes.

I didn't count to see if it was actually a majority, but it definitely felt like most people posting in the thread were unhappy with the changes, be it because of the "not telling" option or other reasons. My opinion on the matter should be apparent, and it hasn't changed. In the end it seems like this was not discussed further after the change only because of fatigue on both sides.

It wasn't a major talking point, but a few people were concerned about the "13-17" and "40+" ranges being too broad.

This is also the main point of this thread, so I think this is the main thing that should be addressed. As it stands now the ranges are pretty arbitrary, but they're going to be arbitrary no matter what. We only think of decades as a thing that matters because we like the number 10 as a species.

[Sageacity]

I'm game for space to express/designate an age descriptor if not direct numbers... granted that I can avoid the temptation of making another bad joke. 

I do get a little leery when sharing personal info at the forefront even though I have been by defintion, an adult for 6 years. I'm grew used to a cyber world where I was a faceless "entity" so to speak, with my most defining quality being my personality. But, I'm adjusting to being more flesh-like on the interweb. So as I said, I'm open to whatever may improve the sff environment for more people. 

[Vetinari]

17 hours ago, Dusty15 said:

Haven't spoken to the rest of the staff so this isn't 'official' but no one has ever voiced an issue with the 40+ range before to my knowledge. Happy to consider and discuss further specifics for that. I think the impetus at the time was a fear that anyone over 60 would perhaps feel disinclined to list their actual age for fear of being judged as 'too old' or 'an old perv' or something, so by lumping anyone over 40 together, there was essentially a "full grown adult" category that didn't get too specific (though as someone who will be 40 in less than I decade, I can understand that perhaps no one ever feels like a 'full grown adult'). As it has been pointed out, there's always the option to list your specific age in your profile.

This sounds to me as if, because of the (unproven) assumption that people over sixty are more likely to be uncomfortable with their age, I don't get to specify my age in any meaningful way.

I am a full grown adult. I'm not remotely ashamed of my age and I can't imagine becoming so.

Those who wish to hide, whatever their age, have the option of "not telling". I feel like I don't have any option that I am particularly happy with right now.

I will reiterate what I said back at the beginning. I feel the way the ranges are currently set up is ageist and the explanation above confirms this. Those who are older are being singled out as being of an age which is assumed to be explicitly embarrassing. There are people in all age groups who are unhappy to divulge their age. Why single out that group? 

Personally, I don't feel this requires any major discussion. I think the staff should decide whether they are willing to have more flexiblity (i.e go back to the old system) or whether age ranges are preferable for some functional reason. Presumably the staff will have some idea whether the age range function has improved compliance.

Either way, the system should be set up in a way that allows equality for all age groups. The only possible exception is those who are under 18, when there are major physical and mental changes occurring.

 

 

[Anonymouse]

If we really want to keep it simple, make the options "youth" or "adult"... but then the pedos might come flowing in as "youth," and some youth might lie and say they're adults. There really doesn't seem to be a perfect way.

[Bondi]

But they can still lie about their age with the current system and any system so it doesn't matter what we do in that regard.

I thought the old system where you just put your age in worked okay.