vass: A sepia-toned line-drawing of a man in naval uniform dancing a hornpipe, his crotch prominent (Default)
[personal profile] vass

Title:
Filter entries by tags AND security level

Area:
tags, access filters

Summary:
It would be great to have a straightforward way to filter someone's current entries by both tags and security level, at the same time.

Description:
Currently, you can filter someone's entry by tag, e.g. user.dreamwidth.org/tag/banana would display all User's entries tagged 'banana' .

You can also filter it by security level, e.g. user.dreamwidth.org/security/public . This would display all User's current public entries.

But there is no obvious way (AFAIK - please correct me if I'm wrong) to do both at once, e.g. if you could use user.dreamwidth.org/security/public/tag/banana to display all User's current public entries tagged 'banana'. And some people have hundreds of entries per tag, so checking all by hand might not be practical.

This would be useful for if you need to quickly check if something a person told you is public knowledge before running your mouth about it in your own journal ("Looks like User's banana posts are all access-locked. I'd better ask them first before posting publicly about meeting them at the banana festival!") or, potentially, for checking your own security levels ("I try to make sure my posts on lutefisk are in an opt-in access group for my fellow lutefisk enthusiasts, but I think I might have forgotten to filter a few. Let me just check user.dreamwidth.org/security/access/tag/lutefisk and the same for security/public/tag/lutefisk to make sure of that.")

Potential drawbacks:
- it might hit the database too hard? IDK.
- people have custom security groups with / in the title, and people have tags with / in the title, and this would make it more difficult to form a URL, not matter whether it's /security/level/tag/tagname, or /tag/tagname/security/level.

Poll #15786 Filter entries by tags AND security level
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 40


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
16 (40.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (15.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
17 (42.5%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.5%)

jordannamorgan: The artwork "Ascending and Descending", by M. C. Escher. (Default)
[personal profile] jordannamorgan

Title:
Filter management page: save button instead of autosave

Area:
reading page filter management

Summary:
I would prefer having a basic "save" button on the reading-page filter management menu, instead of an autosave function.

Description:
Okay, so here's where this started. I'm currently having a problem on IE in which, when I try to select tags to include/exclude on my reading page filters, the "autosave" won't work. I submitted a support request; they confirmed this is a bug, and are looking into it. (For now I have to use a different browser to set filters, which is very annoying.)

The point is: in my support request, I mentioned that what I'd really prefer is just a plain old "save" button at the bottom of the filter-management page, instead of the autosave. Clicking a button to save changes seems much more reliable to me, and gives me more certainty that the change has actually gone through.

(In fact, coupled with the bug making it not work, I didn't even know there *was* an autosave actively trying to function on the page for a while. The little alert line that says "saving in X seconds" shows up near the top of the page--but I'm scrolled down to where I won't see it when I'm selecting tags to be filtered.)

Anyway, the person who answered my support ticket said my comment about wishing for a save button should be brought up here instead. So I figured it couldn't hurt to do so.

Bottom line, I just feel a lot more comfortable when pages have clear commands like a "save" button, instead of fancier and more bug-prone features like this autosave that's not even working for me.

Poll #13975 Filter management page: save button instead of autosave
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 43


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
17 (39.5%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
11 (25.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (4.7%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (25.6%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (4.7%)

wailor: (Default)
[personal profile] wailor

Title:
Some privacy incoherence

Area:
Profile

Summary:
There's a way that allows people to know I have updated my journal with a filter entry (and they aren't inside that filter).

Description:
Ok so here's what I've noticed:

Imagine you have a few friends and you want to post an entry to prepared a surprised b-day party just for one of them. You don't want him or her to know about it so you'll post a filter entry right? but, if that friend is smart enough and have some curiosity, he or she could discover that I've posted a new filter entry. That's a problem because that person could feel upset about it thinking that I have something to hide to him or her.

The way he or she could discover it is by my profile page. There's some information that I can't hide that tells her or him that there's something new that she or he isn't allow to see. That information is the number of "journal entries" and the "last updated".

The example I wrote up there is just one of multiple cases where it'll be necessary to hide that information and I can't think a reason why I couldn't hide it.

So, my suggestion is to allow to hide that information as I do with other things like my birthday, my location, etc.

Poll #12623 Some privacy incoherence
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 63


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
10 (15.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (12.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
32 (50.8%)

(I have no opinion)
11 (17.5%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (3.2%)

kaberett: Overlaid Mars & Venus symbols, with Swiss Army knife tools at other positions around the central circle. (Default)
[personal profile] kaberett

Title:
"This post will self-destruct shortly...": automated security changes

Area:
privacy, filters

Summary:
People commonly make public posts which they do not wish to remain public indefinitely. An additional field at posting ("Change security [...] to [...] when [...] (has/have) elapsed") would remove the need to remember to make the manual change at a later date.

Description:
I repeatedly come across cases where people make a post with the specific intention of subsequently changing its visibility, for example:

(1) person with username A changes it to B. They want to flag this up to their subscribers, without creating a permanent trivially-findable public record. They make a public posting, intending to manually restrict access to said post after a week. Memory proves to be a tricksy beast, however.

(2) person wants their "current" entries to be public - on a rolling basis. That is, they *don't* want their entire journal to be public, but *do* want their initially-set-as-public posts over the last N weeks to be generally visible.

(3) person is making a links round-up (LRU); realises they've left out a link; edits the original post to include it. In order to flag this up to people who've already read the LRU and won't read closely again, they make a follow-up post to appear on people's dwrolls, highlighting that they've added a new link, with the intention of deleting the follow-up post after a few hours (at which point it is obsolete, because people who're only just catching up with their reading lists won't have seen the pre-edit LRU anyway!)


In each of these cases, it would be helpful if there were the option tree at point of posting:

Change security at later date? Y/N
Change security to? [pre-defined set of access filters, etc!]
Change security when? [hours, days, weeks...]

... such that in case:

(1) person, at time of posting, can say "make this post access-locked after a week"
(2) user can set a default behaviour of "increase privacy of all posts to [LEVEL] after a month" (where custom filters, etc obviously don't have their privacy level *reduced*!)
(3) user can make the post automatically set itself private e.g. 6 hours after initially posting


In IRC we briefly discussed the possibility of actual self-destruct - i.e. automatic deletion after a set time frame - but consensus there was that auto-deletion is an undesirable behaviour, because (a) deletion is irreversible, and (b) setting posts to private has the same effect on the reader as deleting them.

In terms of downsides, the only one that springs out at me is that - at least for my level of familiarity with the code-base - this would be an absolute *swine* to implement. However, I am very open to hearing other criticisms :-)

Poll #11815 "This post will self-destruct shortly...": automated security changes
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 64


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
25 (39.1%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
10 (15.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
13 (20.3%)

(I have no opinion)
15 (23.4%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.6%)

tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
[personal profile] tim

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%)

kaberett: Overlaid Mars & Venus symbols, with Swiss Army knife tools at other positions around the central circle. (Default)
[personal profile] kaberett

Title:
Opt-in access filters

Area:
privacy, circle management, filters

Summary:
Many users have opt-in access filters, allowing their readers to specify which topics interest them. Currently this tends to involve a lot of work for a journal owner in terms of transcribing results from polls or views expressed in comments. An automated system allowing people on given journal owner's access list to opt-in to filters without requiring work on the part of the J.O. would be awesome.

Description:
Journal owners will often decide that they want to filter their posts according to subject - e.g. "knitting" or "offspring" or "local happenings" or "school" or "health"-related posts - so that their readers are not exposed to posts on topics they have no interest in. Currently, this is typically managed by the journal owner asking their access list/readers to leave a comment/respond to a poll indicating what the readers would like to see. The journal owner then needs to transcribe these results onto the circle management page - which typically involves repeatedly switching between browser windows/tabs.

It would be potentially useful if some of this process could be automated to reduce the amount of work the journal owner has to do.

I envisage something like:

1. J.O. creates an access filter, and specifies that it is an opt-in filter.
2. J.O. flags to readers that these opt-in filters exist/new subscribers are informed that these opt-in filters exist as they subscribe.
3. Readers tick some boxes that indicate "if I [have been/am in future] granted access, I wish to be included in this subset of opt-in filters"
4. J.O. receives a notification that Reader X wishes to be added to filters X,Y,Z. Notification includes links "click here to allow all" and "click here to edit" (for those cases where J.O. decides they really don't fancy having their family members on their sex filter, or what have you!)
5. Profit!!!

The main problem I see with this is that it causes many, MANY more options to become available, in ways that might be intimidating - which in turn makes me think that this might be a good feature to roll out as a perk of paid accounts.

Poll #9800 Opt-in access filters
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 61


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
29 (47.5%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (9.8%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
8 (13.1%)

(I have no opinion)
15 (24.6%)

(Other: please comment)
3 (4.9%)

azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)
[personal profile] azurelunatic

Title:
Log filter changes (user-viewably)

Area:
access filters, reading filters, user-facing logs

Summary:
Show a log of changes to filter membership (access and reading) over time.

Description:
Inspired by http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/385524.html, it would be nice to see at what point in time various users (or feeds/communities) were added to or subtracted from access and reading filters.

If this is logged now, it is not logged so a user can see it. It probably would not solve any real deep and pressing everyday problem for most people, but occasionally either something comes up, or there's a need to research. This could also be helpful in discovering the sneaky kind of account compromise where someone with unobserved physical access to a logged-in session quietly adds themselves to filters they were not in originally.

The log should probably stretch as far back as practical, paginate sensibly, and be able to be sorted and filtered.

It should be viewable by all filters, by only access or only reading, by any specific single filter, and by any user. (Anything else that would be helpful?)

If filtering, sorting, slicing, and dicing would significantly add to the complexity to implement or expense to run, it could be implemented with a basic view at first, or have advanced features be reserved as paid.

It should have appropriate contextual links to modify filters and membership.


I don't imagine that this would be any kind of pressing priority to implement, I just want it in Bugzilla so someday someone who's bored and cruising through can say "Oh boy! That sounds like great fun to code! I think I'll pick that!"

Poll #9496 Log filter changes (user-viewably)
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 58


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
29 (50.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (3.4%)

(I have no opinion)
27 (46.6%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

cesy: "Cesy" - An old-fashioned quill and ink (Default)
[personal profile] cesy

Title:
Order subscription filters by name

Area:
filters, reading page, subscriptions

Summary:
On the Manage Filters page, http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/subscriptions/filters, order the filters by name

Description:
The list of filters is currently ordered by when you created them, so if you weren't particularly logical about setting up your subscription filters, http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/subscriptions/filters can show a bit of a mess in the drop-down. Rather than having to re-create them all, I'd love it if they could be sorted by name rather than creation date. It's already possible to rename a filter, so this would allow people to order them however they wanted - if you want to keep them in creation order, just stick numbers on the front.

Poll #9370 Order subscription filters by name
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 63


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
37 (58.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
5 (7.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (1.6%)

(I have no opinion)
20 (31.7%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

ursula: (Default)
[personal profile] ursula

Title:
import names from access filter to subscription filter

Area:
filters

Summary:
Users should be able to import the list of people on an access filter as a reading filter, or import the list of people on a reading filter as an access filter.

Description:
I came to Dreamwidth from LiveJournal. On lj, I had some filters that functioned primarily as reading filters and some that functioned primarily as access filters. I created my dw account before reading filters were implemented, so I re-created all of my lj filters as access filters. My reading list on dw has now grown large enough that I'd like to re-purpose some of these "access" filters as reading filters.

When creating a new reading filter, I would like to be able to import all of the names from an existing access filter and then add or subtract names. For instance, to build a "politics" reading filter, I could start by importing the names on my "notrepublicans" access filter, and then add feeds of political bloggers.

I imagine that the reverse functionality, building access filters based on reading filters, might also be useful.

Poll #4438 import names from access filter to subscription filter
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 43


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
27 (62.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (9.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (2.3%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (23.3%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.3%)

wide_worlds_joy: (Default)
[personal profile] wide_worlds_joy

Title:
Friends groups mass edit

Area:
Custom groups

Summary:
A way to mass edit friends, groups they are in and keep it straight

Description:
I noticed the other night when I was trying to redo my filters that there was something missing from the "Edit Circle" page. That's the ability to add/subtract them from specific filters.

You had to go to that user's description page to actually change the groups they were in, or go to the individual filters and add or subtract them from there.

I don't know about you, but I find that to be a couple steps too many, and a bother to boot. I don't always remember a person from one page to another.

So my suggestion is this: First, add a column with a 16x16 or 30x30 copy of their default icon. This will show me quickly who I am dealing with without having to remember their name. Then also on that user "line", possibly between it and the next user, have a section for all the filters you have with tick boxes to customize the groups they are in. That way when updating a filter, or creating a new one, it will be relatively easy to glance at the icon, know who you are dealing with, tick a box and then hit "save". If you make one filter, you can still do it from the edit groups page, and if you add a user, you can still edit those groups from their description. But this way you can see your ENTIRE circle, edit the access/subscription AND filters all at once.

That's my suggestion.

Poll #4416 Friends groups mass edit
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 26


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
9 (34.6%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
5 (19.2%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (3.8%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (38.5%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (3.8%)

denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
[staff profile] denise
[Suggestion made by OpenID user, reposted by moi.]

Summary:

"add to circle" ought to default to both "grand access" and "subscribe" checked, then let me uncheck one if i wish.

Description:

when i click add to circle, no boxes are checked by default. perhaps the most compelling argument can be made for having both checked by default (both grant access and subscribe). but at least one ought to be checked by defualt. lest why did i click "add to circule"?

Suggested by:

ext_45274

Poll #4324 adding to circle ought to default to an add
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 73


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is
18 (24.7%)

Should be implemented with changes (please comment)
20 (27.4%)

Shouldn't be implemented
26 (35.6%)

(I have no opinion)
5 (6.8%)

(Other: please comment)
4 (5.5%)

owlectomy: A squashed panda sewing a squashed panda (Default)
[personal profile] owlectomy

Title:
Ability to filter Network page

Area:
network page

Summary:
A user should be able to select certain users/communities so that those posts will never appear on their network page.

Description:
I would like to be able to pick out particular communities, users, or feeds and never see those posts when I (as a logged-in user) read my network page.

I read my network page a lot. Several weeks ago, because of a feed-related bug, I was getting multi-thousand-word Stargate Atlantis slash fanfics, uncut, on my network page, and I would have loved a way to filter those out of my network, as well as communities that make me a little bit sad (like the wine community; I'm allergic.)

Currently, the only way to make sure that certain posts never show up on my network page is to subscribe to those users and communities, then filter them from my default reading list. It seems like it would be more efficient to create a filter that could be applied without subscribing.

Poll #3032 Ability to filter Network page
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 58


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
36 (62.1%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (10.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (3.4%)

(I have no opinion)
13 (22.4%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.7%)

niqaeli: cat with arizona flag in the background (Default)
[personal profile] niqaeli

Title:
Optionally allow readers to see the other members of a custom filter

Area:
entries, reading page

Summary:
Allow journal owners to flag custom filters individually so membership in that filter can be viewed by the members of the filter.

Description:
This is an idea that's been around the block a few times already in other incarnations and has been rejected, I believe, for reasons of security and privacy.

Still, there's a reason it keeps coming up; people want to be able to know who they can talk to about a given entry that was custom-filtered in contexts other than the entry's comments. This isn't just for drama avoidance/management -- though, certainly, it should be useful for that -- but also, custom filters are often used for planning purposes and knowing who is on on the planning can be valuable in not ruining surprises, etc.

So, I think it would be very valuable if the journal owner could flag any particular filter's membership as available for viewing to the members of that filter. Filters that were flagged this way would need a different lock icon -- different colour and shape, presumably, for accessibility and transparency. Arguably the easiest way to link to the listing of membership would be by making the altered lock icon a link to it.

There's still some possible privacy concerns -- should people be able to opt out of being shown in filters even if the journal owner has flagged a filter they are part of? my feeling is no, as it would largely defeat the point -- but on some level, I do think that it's down to the journal owner to let people know who else is on a filter or not. And they can do that, regardless of the technology. This would provide them an entirely optional and significantly simpler way than trying to pull that information out of the filters management page.

The only real social downside I honestly see to implementing this in this fashion is that it can still easily break user expectations: filters have behaved in the way they have for so long that changing the behaviour, even optionally, could break user expectations badly and that can lead to resentment and frustration.

On a technical level, I got no clue. Though it seems simple enough an idea, I realise it could be technically complex to implement, and of course I can't speak to what kind of load it might put on the servers. If this were agreed on as something to be implemented and the load were to be significant, I think this would be a nice paid feature as it is a usability tweak that can improve the site experience for both the journal owner and their readers.

Poll #2753 Optionally allow readers to see the other members of a custom filter
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 61


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
20 (32.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (9.8%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
16 (26.2%)

(I have no opinion)
19 (31.1%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

zorkian: Icon full of binary ones and zeros in no pattern. (Default)
[personal profile] zorkian

Title:
'Default' Access Groups

Area:
access groups

Summary:
I have several access groups that I put just about everybody in, and it would be convenient to be able to say 'these groups are default -- everybody I give access to should go in here automatically'.

Description:
The summary basically says it all. Some things I would note:

* You can remove people from the groups. So if you do want to give access to someone and not have them in your defaults, you can grant access, then go remove them from the groups they shouldn't be in.

* The UI page that lets you grant access to someone and shows you your groups should show the default groups checked when it loads so you don't have to do it.

* Granting access through the AJAX pop-ups should automatically put people in the default groups.

But, as always, all of this can be discussed and changed through the process of suggestions. I put it to you, dear community!

Poll #2492 'Default' Access Groups
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 49


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
35 (71.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
14 (28.6%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

triadruid: Apollo and the Raven, c. 480 BC , Pistoxenus Painter  (Default)
[personal profile] triadruid

Title:
Default View/Default filters should be, well, default

Area:
reading list, access circle, subscription

Summary:
When you grant someone access to your journal, they should be be added to the 'Default' access filter automatically without any user action. Likewise, the 'Default View' reading filter should automatically be updated, if it exists.

Description:
It's possible that I've done something wrong in setting them up, but I found it incredibly counterintuitive that the slew of people I just added to my reading list/circle of friends was not added to my default reading/trust filters. I thought no one was posting all day!

This becomes especially important if you use the hover menu, since it doesn't have the optional filters section that the full page version at /manage/circle/add has.

Poll #1919 Default View/Default filters should be, well, default
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 39


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
17 (43.6%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
10 (25.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
4 (10.3%)

(I have no opinion)
7 (17.9%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.6%)

hatman: HatMan, my alter ego and face on the 'net (Default)
[personal profile] hatman

Title:
Ability to link tags to access filters

Area:
Tags, posting, access filters, importing journals

Summary:
Automated process that locks all entries tagged with "FOO" to the "FOO" access filter. Perhaps also the reverse - tagging all "FOO"-filtered entries with the "FOO" tag.

Description:
Many access filters are tied to a specific subject - something only certain people are interested in or allowed to know about. Entries tied to a specific subject often have an associated tag. It would be nice to have the option to bring those two things together, so that entries tagged with "FOO" are automatically access-locked to the "FOO" filter, and/or entries locked to the "FOO" filter are automatically given the "FOO" tag.

Mostly, it's for convenience - one less step when you post, and a backup in case you forget to add a tag or lock a post. Just a little thing to make posting a shade simpler.

Which brings up the one drawback I can see - it may be more work to implement that it's worth.

However there is a larger application for those who wish to import entries from multiple journals - or there would be if the importer had the ability to automatically tag entries. Which is a whole other suggestion.

Poll #1810 Ability to link tags to access filters
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
14 (46.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
2 (6.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (10.0%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (33.3%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (3.3%)

zvi: self-portrait: short, fat, black dyke in bunny slippers (Default)
[personal profile] zvi

Title:
Subscribing to user should point you at reading filters; giving access point you at access filters.

Area:
filters, circle management

Summary:
Currently, when you subscribe to someone, the site asks if you want to give them access and presents your access filters for you to place them on. It should present your subscription filters instead.

Description:
The current behavior is legacy behavior because friending was unlocking and subscribing simultaneously. On Dreamwidth, it's clear that subscribing to an account is an indication that one wants to read the account, so we should present options for managing how it is read.

Of course, we should also say, "do you also want to give access?" and if they say yes, we can *then* move into a dialogue about access filters. But subscribing should default to subscription filters.

Poll #1474 Subscribing to user should point you at reading filters; giving access point you at access filters.
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 30


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
28 (93.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (3.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (3.3%)

(I have no opinion)
0 (0.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

ninetydegrees: Drawing: a girl's face, with a yellow and green stripe over one eye (Default)
[personal profile] ninetydegrees

Title:
Set Manage Filters to Subscriptions in the 'Organize' Menu

Area:
Site Scheme 'Organize' Menu

Summary:
Manage Filters is currently set to load the 'Manage Access Filters' page. From there you can manage your subscription filters. I suggest the opposite be done.

Description:
Ideally, the two could be separated and added as two different links in 'Organize' but there are already many links in this menu. I modify/set subscriptions filters more often than access filters but I have no idea what you guys do. Guess the poll will tell me what's best for everybody. :)

Poll #1467 Set Manage Filters to Subscriptions in the 'Organize' Menu
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 21


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
7 (33.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (19.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (9.5%)

(I have no opinion)
7 (33.3%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (4.8%)

denny: Photo of me wearing my beloved silly hat.  It's wuzzy! (Default)
[personal profile] denny

Title:
Add 'custom access list' to 'allow search by'

Area:
Journal search

Summary:
It might be useful to add an option for 'custom access list' to the options of 'everybody/access/owner' for who can use your journal search.

Description:
I can imagine that there would be cases where people would like to give access to their search to a sub-set of the people on their access list. In this case, the ability to define a custom access list for the purpose would be useful.

Perhaps if people defined an access list called 'journal search' it could automagically become available as an option on the menu where you select the search permissions? Or if they select the 'custom list' option then the access list would be automatically created for them to populate?

Poll #1465 Add 'custom access list' to 'allow search by'
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 24


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
9 (37.5%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
10 (41.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (4.2%)

(I have no opinion)
4 (16.7%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

afuna: Cat under a blanket. Text: "Cats are just little people with Fur and Fangs" (Default)
[personal profile] afuna

Title:
Be able to view all entries not in a filter on-the-fly, without needing to set up a separate filter

Area:
filters

Summary:
If I have a "Default" filter, it would be nice to have a !Default or _Default, filter, which shows me entries that I filtered out of my Default view. This would make it easier to filter to only entries I haven't read yet.

Description:
Ideally, it would respect which journals are on the filter, and only reverse on the tags/security settings/explicitness/etc.

For example, if I subscribe to three users:

userEverything, userOnlySFW, userNotOnFilter

I read my readpage from a public place. "/read/Filter", would show me all of userEverything's entries, only SFW entries by userOnlySFW, and no entries by userNotOnFilter.

"/read/!Filter" would show me none of userEverything's entries, only NSFW entries by userOnlySFW, and still no entries by userNotOnFilter.

I'm not particularly tied to the format; I'd just rather not have to set up two filters, and have to remember to update them both if something changes. More fine-grained control would still be possible for individual options; this is more an easy way to catch entries I'd skipped before, without having to wade through entries I've already read.

Poll #1463 Be able to view all entries not in a filter on-the-fly, without needing to set up a separate filter
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 29


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
15 (51.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
6 (20.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (3.4%)

(I have no opinion)
5 (17.2%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (6.9%)

Profile

Dreamwidth Suggestions

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
23456 7 8
9 101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom