Content warning cuts on reading list

[melannen]

Title:
Content warning cuts on reading list

Area:
Adult content warnings

Summary:
The lj-cut text that shows up on a reading list and journal pages for entries in journals and communities with adult content filters is misleading.

Description:
When someone logged out (or otherwise having adult content filters set) is looking at a reading page containing entries from journals and communities that have set adult content warnings, the entries are replaced with cuts with a preset text.

All entries flagged 18+/adult content get the text "You're about to view content that a community administrator has marked as possibly inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18." - referencing a community administrator - even when the entry is in a private journal, which makes it appear that the flag could have been set by somebody other than the journal owner.

Conversely, all entries with the viewer discretion flag set get the text "You're about to view content which the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion. " - even if they're entries in communities, which is also confusing, though less so.

ETA: This problem seems to only appear when the entire journal is set to adult content, not when individual entries are marked. When individual entries are marked, the text is correct.

The language in the cuts should be changed so that references to community maintainers and journal owners are either removed, or match the type of the journal.

It would be very nice if the cut text was in general re-written to be more informative - more like the text you get if you click through to the warning page, giving a reason, who did the marking, and the fact that the whole journal is marked, not just the one entry* - but at the very least, the misleading language about community administrators needs to be fixed.

*yes, clicking on "You're about to view content which the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion" to get to pictures of a kitten playing with string *is* amusing, but also very odd to anyone who isn't already familiar with how the filters work.

Poll #1195 Content warning cuts on reading list

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 33

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
22 (66.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (3.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
9 (27.3%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (3.0%)

Comments

[yvi]

With changes: and the fact that the whole journal is marked, not just the one entry I wouldn't want that, since whether or not the whole journal is marked doesn't tell you a lot. It could be NSFW or the picture of a kitten.

The only time that information would really tell you something is if the rest of the journal *isn't* marked, but this entry is, so you can assume that was done deliberately.

[cesy]

For me, it is useful to know when looking at a NSFW symbol whether it is either "deliberate for just that entry" or "default for the whole journal". If the latter, I will tend to click on it anyway, (depending on the entry subject) because the chance of it being a kitten rather than NSFW is such that the risk is usually worth it for me.

[yvi]

See below, I think my suggested change was unclear.

[cesy]

Yeah, it looks like we all wanted the same thing, and just got confused.

[yvi]

I am bad at this whole suggestions thing. Maybe I should stick to implementing the accepted ones ;)

[cesy]

Nah, you're good. It's just tricky to explain things when there aren't any clear terms for things, and we think it's obvious what we mean but sometimes it isn't. I also have problems when referring to certain settings or pages and forgetting there are other things with similar names. We'll get there eventually :)

[melannen]

I would want the distinction so that when someone *has* deliberately marked it, I can tell. And I would want the the text there for whole-journal cases because if some who *isn't* familiar with DW (and is therefore almot certainly surfing logged out) finds the picture of the kitten behind adult content lock, it can be really confusing & give a strange idea of DW's adult content policies until some explains about locking whole journals.

Also, in my circle & network (though ymmv, of course), the individual entry version is used *so rarely*, and people who have locked whole journals *so rarely* actually post explicit content, that the kitten is much more likely than anything NSFW. As a result I almost always ignore the warnings; it would be really nice to know when one was deliberate for the entry.

[yvi]

it would be really nice to know when one was deliberate for the entry.

Actually, I agree and would want that.

I only thought from your wording you meant kind of the opposite: having extra information only when the whole journal is marked, not having extra information when only that entry is marked. Of course if one *knows* that the extra information would be there if the whole journal is marked, than the absence of that information would tell you that this entry was marked deliberately, but adding extra information for the 'deliberate marking' case would be clearer.

I wasn't very clear in what change I was suggesting, I see. It sounded like I was against any extra information in the text. I just meant that I would add the information in the reverse case. I hope you get what I mean with that suggestion now.

[melannen]

Okay, yeah, thanks.

I was trying to say that the current language already makes it sound like it's just the one entry, so I would basically like it to change if the whole journal is marked, and but it could probably stay the same if only the entry is marked. I wasn't very clear either though, sorry. If we're adding a new line, it should definitely be for both cases.

[ninetydegrees]

I tested this in a personal journal and a community I got exactly the same text in both, and the same kind of cut text when selecting NSFW and 18+:

( You're about to view content which the poster has advised should be viewed with discretion. ).
( You're about to view content that the poster has marked as potentially inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18. ).

If I mark someone else' post as NSFW or 18+ in one of my communities, I get:

( You are about to view content that a community maintainer has advised should be viewed with discretion. )
( You're about to view content that a community administrator has marked as possibly inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18. )

In conclusion, I don't think you're right when you say it's related to the restriction level unless the cut texts have been changed.

Also, reasons for age restrictions may be explicit themselves and I think it's not a bad idea to make people click to see them.

[melannen]

That's really strange: I checked with a lot of journals & communities while logged out, and I definitely got (and still get) the usage I describe here.

Were you marking individual entries as NSFW, or marking the whole journal/community? The misleading text might only appear when it's the whole journal that is marked - I didn't test with individual entries; people I know hardly ever use that functionality.

(Are you testing it while logged out, or do you actually have a restriction level set while logged in? Again, I only tested while logged out, so it's possible the behavior only appears for logged-out users.)

If you were testing the same way I was, can you log out and go to princessofgeeks's journal or kazbaby's? I still get the "community administrator" text for both of them. chromatic_fanfic and girlgay are two communities where I still get the "journal owner" text, too. - it's definitely linked to restriction level for me.

It's true that the reasons may be explicit themselves, though if someone direct-links to an entry, the reasons still show up without any clickthrough, so I kind of feel like it's up to the poster to be responsible there. On the other hand, I'm not all that attached to the idea; you're right that it doesn't really hurt much to make people click to see them, and you might want to be even more careful about what shows up on the flist.

[yvi]

At princessofgeeks:

***

Journal:

Age Filtered Notice

You're about to view content that [info - personal] princessofgeeks marked as inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18. To continue, you must confirm that you're at least 18 years of age.

[info - personal] princessofgeeks provided the following reason for this journal being marked "suitable for 18+": fiction with adult or sexually explicit themes.

***

Entry cut:

( You're about to view content that a community administrator has marked as possibly inappropriate for anyone under the age of 18. )

---

At girlgay:

***

Journal:

Age Filtered Notice

You're about to view content that [info - community] girlgay has advised should be viewed with discretion. To continue, you must confirm you want to view this content.

***

Entry cut:

( You're about to view content which the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion. )

---

I think it might have just been implemented the wrong way around by accident.

[melannen]

Gotcha, thanks - yeah, the problem only shows up in the entry cuts, and I guess it does only show up if the whole journal is marked - I'll go edit the OP to make that clearer.

Yes, it's almost certainly just a bug. But it still needs fixed!

[msilverstar]

very clear examples there

[ninetydegrees]

Oh I didn't understand from your entry that you only meant whole journals. Sorry.