tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
Tim Chevalier ([personal profile] tim) wrote in [site community profile] dw_suggestions2012-05-13 10:56 pm

Include subscribers in "screen comments from people not on your access list"

Title:
Include subscribers in "screen comments from people not on your access list"

Area:
comments

Summary:
Right now the options for comment screening are "never", "anonymous comments", "people not on your access list", or "always". I want to change "people not on your access list" to "people on neither your access list nor your subscriber list".

Description:
I'm not sure how other people use automatic screening, but I use it to discourage abusive / derailing comments. If someone is on *either* my access list or my subscriber list, I probably trust them not to make such comments. So I suggest, in the "Comment screening" menu in "My Account Settings", changing the "people not on your access list" option to also exempt people on your subscriber list from auto-screening.

An alternative suggestion is to just add one more option to the list: "people not on your access list or your subscriber list", and leave the other options as-is. I prefer the first solution for simplicity, but either way is OK.

I don't see any drawbacks to the latter option except that adding more options to the list makes that part of the account settings harder to understand. The drawback to the former option is that someone might want to auto-screen comments from people they subscribe to but who they don't trust enough to grant access to. However I don't know if anyone actually does want to or not.

Edit: Since this is apparently unclear, "your subscriber list" means the people you choose to subscribe to. You choose who to subscribe to. Everybody on your subscriber list is someone you chose to subscribe to and can unsubscribe from.

Poll #10451 Include subscribers in "screen comments from people not on your access list"
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 57


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
10 (17.5%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (5.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
30 (52.6%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (19.3%)

(Other: please comment)
3 (5.3%)

ratcreature: RL? What RL? RatCreature is a net addict.  (what rl?)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2012-05-14 06:45 am (UTC)(link)
To me this makes no sense, because I don't have any control over who subscribes to me, so there is no trust nor a guarantee that is isn't spammers or trolls, whereas I pick whom I give access.
ratcreature: RL? What RL? RatCreature is a net addict.  (what rl?)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2012-05-14 06:51 am (UTC)(link)
But that group doesn't really have anything to do with the ones that read my journal and comment, so an option mixing those people with the access list seems even more confusing to me. Subscribers in the context of people who comment in my journal I understood to mean people who subscribe to me, not the people who I read. And I read plenty of people whom I don't know, so I don't want to mix that with trust aspects of the access list.
ratcreature: RL? What RL? RatCreature is a net addict.  (what rl?)

[personal profile] ratcreature 2012-05-14 07:00 am (UTC)(link)
I could see that as an additional option, but not instead of the access list only option. That should still be there without this expansion.
havocthecat: the lady of shalott (Default)

[personal profile] havocthecat 2012-05-14 12:37 pm (UTC)(link)
+1
kerravonsen: (Default)

[personal profile] kerravonsen 2012-05-15 01:28 am (UTC)(link)
+1 This is my "with changes".
ninetydegrees: Drawing: a girl's face, with a yellow and green stripe over one eye (Default)

[personal profile] ninetydegrees 2012-05-14 03:27 pm (UTC)(link)
I read all comments before plussing RT's. I agree with their reasoning. Thanks for telling me, though.
Edited 2012-05-14 16:42 (UTC)
inthetatras: Sorry, Mario, the princess is in another castle. (The Disappointment of Mario)

[personal profile] inthetatras 2012-05-14 07:24 am (UTC)(link)
I would not be against an option regarding mutual subscribers if there were enough benefit sitewide for it, but I don't think that the option "people not on your access list" should be messed with. If need be, you can always use multiple filters for those on your access list. That's what those are there for.
montuos: cartoon portrait of myself (Default)

[personal profile] montuos 2012-05-14 03:43 pm (UTC)(link)
+1 — I don't object to adding an option for subscribers in addition to access list (neither am I actively for this option, mind you), but I do strongly object to using that to replace the existing option for access list.
inthetatras: Izayan skeedaddles. (hop along now)

[personal profile] inthetatras 2012-05-14 03:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah. Replacing it would cause problems for the people who only want to screen comments from those not on their access list.
deborah: the Library of Congress cataloging numbers for children's literature, technology, and library science (Default)

[personal profile] deborah 2012-05-14 03:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Ultimately, all in access list is in the definition of "people I trust". There may be a difference between "people I trust to be sensible in a comment thread" and "people I trust to know that I am angry at my boss". But there is also a difference between "people I trust to know that I am angry at my boss," "people I trust to know that I am having an abortion," and "people I trust to know that I just got arrested for selling cocaine out of the backseat of my car." That is what access filters are for. They can be a pain to manage -- and I'm pretty sure that figuring out a better way to manage them is already on many people's minds -- but that is what they are for, distinguishing between the different levels of people that you trust.
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)

[personal profile] matgb 2012-05-14 03:41 pm (UTC)(link)
You've chosen to subscribe to them but not trust them. I subscribe to people that interest me, including people that interest me because I don't trust them.

If you want to give someone a degree of trust, trust them, that's why the settings were separated. If there's a problem with filters (and the UI is a problem), then that's a separate issue, there is a working solution to your problem, if it's not workign for you as well as intended then we need to fix that, not change the definition of trust or have inconsistent usage.

Your rationale is that if you subscribe to someone by default you trust them to be sensible in comments, I know that some people I may chose to subscribe to are people I would explcitly not trust in comments, that's why I don't trust them or grant them access.

If Filters are your problem, then that needs resolving, the solution to your problem exists already but isn't good enough for you, let's fix that instead.
foxfirefey: A guy looking ridiculous by doing a fashionable posing with a mouse, slinging the cord over his shoulders. (geek)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2012-05-14 03:42 pm (UTC)(link)
An option for people not in your circle could be added, but the option itself CANNOT be changed. The entire reason for the friends split into subscribe and access was so you could subscribe to people without needing to give them access to trusted things, otherwise there's not much point in the split. Changing this on people who may be relying on this distinction is a bad move.
foxfirefey: A close up of my eye, upside down. (eye)

[personal profile] foxfirefey 2012-05-14 03:55 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, they already had access to read it--just like any member of the public since it's logically a public entry, since they don't have access. By that logic, any reader at all should be able to get through the screening, because they already had access to the post, right?

So I really don't think that's what you mean. You mean that you, specifically, trust your subscribers to comment without being screened (as you've previously mentioned). This will not be the case with all people, and the option should not be changed out from under them.

Because you are proposing giving somebody access to something new: You want to give people someone subscribes to access to comment without their comment being screened by changing the meaning of an option. That's new access, because it didn't work that way before.

So, a new option could be added, because I'm sure there are a bunch of people like you who would enjoy it and function in the same way (after all, you do choose who to subscribe to), but the current option itself cannot be changed--doing so would do damage to the notion that you can subscribe to someone just so you can read their public posts without having to trust them.
azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2012-05-14 04:19 pm (UTC)(link)
*nod* This. It would be nice to be able to edit specific commenting permissions in a more finely grained way -- actually, what would be *really* nice is not only a fine-grained comment permissions thing (though that might get into option overload, idk) -- but the ability to turn on (not on-by-default) analytics that say "You've unscreened this commenter a lot more than anybody else. Are they someone you'd want to add to your [access/unscreened-commenting] list?" Because sometimes it might not occur to me otherwise, if they're someone I see around a lot; the process of making actual friends online is gradual and I may think of someone as a friend without noticing that I've not subscribed or granted access.
azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2012-05-14 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)
My image for it involves a whitelist that could be populated with:
Access list (preset list, not broken down, automatically will include all future additions, possibly mandatory), Subscription list (the people you subscribe to, preset list, not broken down, will automatically include all future additions, not mandatory), possibly all members of the current subscription list individually, and then allow people to add individual others. The list would be able to be sorted by various factors.
azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)

[personal profile] azurelunatic 2012-05-14 04:58 pm (UTC)(link)
From the profile, the terms Dreamwidth uses are:

Subscriptions: the people you have subscribed to
Subscribers: the people who have subscribed to you.
green_knight: (Anglerfish)

[personal profile] green_knight 2012-05-14 05:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Other: replacing the current system is a bad idea. I wouldn't mind an additional category of 'people I give access to plus people I subscribe to'.

turlough: small purple crocuses, March 2016 (Default)

[personal profile] turlough 2012-05-14 06:36 pm (UTC)(link)
+1
marahmarie: Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell (Default)

[personal profile] marahmarie 2012-05-16 07:47 am (UTC)(link)
+1

I personally love the suggestion as-is (but want it as an additional option, not as a replacement option) because it screens out Dreamwidth as a whole (say I were to write a post about, I dunno, Denise? and it was quite an edgy little flame and so within hours 300k DW users hit me all at once to say so, quite angrily - well, with Tim's idea, I could just poof! make ya'll go away all at once - before you even get the chance to comment, if I like - while preserving unscreened commenting for those who've been around my DW for a while who I know will take it with a grain of salt because they know that hey, every once in a while, this gal flames somebody, and it just happened to be D's turn - again).

We need this new option. Seriously. Because if 300k of you ever do come after me all at once, without this option, I'm going to need to either 1) screen everybody, or else 2) delete or friends-lock my entire DW to make it stop.

(I currently screen all comments from everyone, btw, but I would love an additional option like this that would let me stop doing that - if it were my choice, I would only screen anons and the rest of you not already on one of my lists).
Edited (typos/clarity/sorry Denise, just using you as an example of what could go wrong/why this suggestion is needed) 2012-05-16 07:53 (UTC)

[personal profile] tamouse 2012-05-14 05:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I tagged this as "Shouldn't be implemented" because I see this as somehow creating a conceptual link between the concept of Access and the concept of Subscribing, where there should not be a link, I feel. These are two different conceptual models. People you allow to read your stuff is far different that People whose stuff you want to read. Certainly, both of these groups *may* want to make comments, however, writing onto your journal is what access is all about.
cesy: "Cesy" - An old-fashioned quill and ink (Default)

[personal profile] cesy 2012-05-14 06:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Another option is fine, but I agree with the arguments for not changing the existing option.