Geeklog Forums

How can I change the signup process? I don't want to use the email-the-password, I'd like people to be able to set their own without the extra steps. Any recommendations?

Unless of course you're comfortable wading through the source and hacking it out yourself...

However, we have been talking about incorporating a new authentication method. There are really 4 main ways that someone could want logins to happen.

They are:
• None
  I'm not kidding. No logins at all. You've got the admin user that's get's established on install and if you want to create another user, you do it manually. But public joins are forbidden.



• Manual
  Basically the site admin would get to see a list of "pending" accounts and have the ability to approve or deny people as they see fit. The people signing up for an account would need to pick a password or have one generated and it would be available once their account was activated. This still allows for public sign up, but more control over your user base.



• Automatic
  This is essentially what happens now. You're saying anyone that wants to sign up can, provided they have a valid email address to get their password. It could be worked so that they request a password and have to go to some URL to validate their email address. But everything happens unattended, or at least without the attention of the site admin.



• Custom
  This one is a tad more complicated. But if you want some special circumstances to be met before they can sign up this is where you do it. Essentially you tell me what function to call to check if they can log in, tell me what "valid values" are to log them in and I'll do just that. You could use this if you wanted to see if they submitted a particular survey, or whatever.

In a nutshell, that's it. We're still not sure how or when this is going to be implemented but it will be in an upcoming release.

Not satisfied? Then let us know what exactly you would like it to be changed to and we can see what your options are.

Maybe this should go under custom, but could the Automatic mode have some amount of filtering? We are thinking about using the GeekLog on a corporate network and would want to limit users to their official internal email addresses (user@corporate.com). So, no external (user@yahoo.com) or internal from a "found" system (user@lab_machine1.corporate.com). This might be useful to others as well; blacklisting a user or domain because of nucence or abuse. The Manual mode would work for us as there are a limited number of users but automatic is preferred. Thank you for an excellent product.

Hello there, We are looking for someone to create a custom signup/registration for our Geeklog portal system. We are interested in using the portal system for our church organization and we would like to obtain a detailed profile of our members. Please let us know if you could help out.

Geeklog 1.3.6 (the version from CVS) already provides a user submission queue as an option. I.e. new members will not get their password until approved by some admin (similar to how the story submission queue works right now). Is this what you're looking for? bye, Dirk

Dirk (anyone), I, too, am _very_ interested in a custom registration for Geeklog. I am using GL for our Association website, and it is pretty much members-only (albeit there are some publicly accessible areas). At any rate, I am most interested in obtaining specific data at the time someone registers -- data to be used in validating their membership. A name and email address is simply not enough to reliably perform this task. Ideally, the data captured could be used in populating the Contact plugin, though this wouldn't be a requirement. (Actually, that would probably be yet another GL hack/plugin -- populate Contact plugin with GL membership data.) Again, as stated, I am _very_ interested in this. If someone could assist in this, I would very much appreciate it. Andrew (not a programmer)

Geeklog 1.3.8 will include hooks for a custom registration (implemented by Blaine). bye, Dirk

Great! Any idea when that will be?