thnidu: my familiar. "Beanie Baby" -type dragon, red with white wings (Default)
thnidu ([personal profile] thnidu) wrote in [site community profile] dw_suggestions2011-12-31 07:51 pm

Make the tag "security" label useful, or remove, or at least explain it

Title:
Make the tag "security" label useful, or remove, or at least explain it

Area:
tags

Summary:
The "security" label on the tag management page is (1) redundant and (2) misleading. (1) It is simply the lowest level (highest line on the chart right above it) that applies to any post tagged with it. (2) By being there at all, it suggests that it is useful, e.g., a settable value for "who can see this tag".

Description:
See Request #12096, under "Site Interface". I asked about the tag, and was told
"Tag security is tied to entry security. If the posts used for those tags are public, then the tags will also be public."

My reply:

So, if I use a tag only for filtered posts, the page for that tag will say "Security: filtered". But the first time I use it for a public post, the "security" level will change to "public". In other words, it's exactly equal to the label on the lowest security level (highest line on the list just above it) with a non-zero count.

The screen is deceptive. Giving a "security" level for the tag strongly implies that there is a security level ASSOCIATED SPECIFICALLY with the tag, and that it can be set somehow. I've been assuming I can set security for any post independent of any other post and any other setting. This "security" field is not only useless -- totally redundant with the list above it -- but misleading as well. Either

1. make it meaningful -- e.g., by letting the user set "who can see this tag" (I may not WANT everyone to know that I've tagged a particular post as "love life", or that I have such a tag!)
2. or rename it, e.g., "lowest security level of posts with this tag", or something shorter that says the same thing, if you can think of a wording
3. or remove it entirely.

Is the meaning of this field described anywhere online? Unless you follow option 3, there should at least be a link on the "security" label to explain it.

My preference is #1. I know that would take more work than #2 (+ the info link), but that would be adding something useful.

Poll #9006 Make the tag "security" label useful, or remove, or at least explain it
Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 65


This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
28 (43.1%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (12.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
28 (43.1%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.5%)

kyrielle: A photo of kyrielle, in profile, turned slightly toward the viewer (Default)

[personal profile] kyrielle 2012-01-06 03:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I can live with any of those options but I do think as it currently is it will be confusing.

Although #1 would be SHINY.

OTOH...I'd also like #2 because knowing the most-visible post with the tag would be nice too. Hmm.

Any of these strike me as better than the current scenario.
ursamajor: people on the beach watching the ocean (Default)

I really like 1, though I can understand how 2 is the easier way to go.

[personal profile] ursamajor 2012-01-06 04:23 pm (UTC)(link)
I would LOVE #1. I've gotten used to the concept of private tags over on Pinboard recently, and oh, the useful-for-self. The major things I can think of that would need addressing with it:

- how to make it obvious that specific tags are nonpublic, particularly to someone else viewing that entry with special "access" or "custom" permissions?
- implementing a function that would let us change the privacy level of specific tags en masse and retroactively
- this would then imply that each individual tag must have a security level that is universal across a given tag - if this gets implemented, how to deal with pre-existing tags? Automatically deemed "private" until manually adjusted? How to translate current tag privacy practice into the new scheme (which I like very much, don't get me wrong; I just think that there'll be some ethics to make sure we're on the right side of)?
- and also when creating new tags, how do we tell the Entry Creation page what security level a given tag should be?

Given the numerous things to think about, I do think that #2 should be implemented quickly as a stopgap while we hash #1 out more thoroughly to see how this fairly major transition could go.
aedifica: Me looking down at laptop (off screen).  Short hair. (Default)

Re: I really like 1, though I can understand how 2 is the easier way to go.

[personal profile] aedifica 2012-01-06 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)
+1
cheyinka: A glowing blue sheep with green eyes (electric sheep)

[personal profile] cheyinka 2012-01-06 06:17 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't have a strong preference among the three options, but I would prefer #2 over #1, and #1 over #3.
ninetydegrees: Drawing: a girl's face, with a yellow and green stripe over one eye (Default)

[personal profile] ninetydegrees 2012-01-06 06:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Voting for #2 as I feel #1 should be a different suggestion since it's on a completely different scale, if the phrasing is shortened to something simpler like "this tag is:".

Edit: voting against #3.
Edited 2012-01-06 18:41 (UTC)
kyrielle: A photo of kyrielle, in profile, turned slightly toward the viewer (Default)

Re: I really like 1, though I can understand how 2 is the easier way to go.

[personal profile] kyrielle 2012-01-06 08:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I wouldn't like auto-private for existing tags - loss of functionality that previously existed, until user edits, isn't a good thing.
sally_maria: (Anime me)

Re: I really like 1, though I can understand how 2 is the easier way to go.

[personal profile] sally_maria 2012-01-06 09:56 pm (UTC)(link)
+1
montuos: cartoon portrait of myself (Default)

Re: I really like 1, though I can understand how 2 is the easier way to go.

[personal profile] montuos 2012-01-07 01:43 am (UTC)(link)
Option #2 is something that can be quickly and easily accomplished, and I agree that the current wording is confusing at best. For best results, also add a link to a FAQ entry. (I just went over and looked, and I have no idea what "trusted" means!) I think this needs to be done regardless of whether option #1 is chosen and implemented.

I really really really like option #1 and would love to see it implemented!

  • how to make it obvious that specific tags are nonpublic

    Use the same lock icon that filtered posts have.


  • if this gets implemented, how to deal with pre-existing tags?

    Set each at its current lowest security until it gets deliberately changed otherwise. It will probably be more effort to implement, but it will cause infinitely less annoyance for users. There are one or two tags I'd like to change to a tighter security level, but most of them are fine as they are, and I really don't want to have to go through and change every single one of them to a different level!


  • how do we tell the Entry Creation page what security level a given tag should be?

    For brand new tags created by using them in an entry, default could be either private (safer and probably easier to code) or whatever security level that entry gets when it posts (this would be more useful to me than defaulting to private). More complex controls should be reserved for Manage Tags.


I'm opposed to option #3; I rather like being able to select a tag and be assured that I haven't used it publicly, even if I can't directly verify which filter(s) I've used it in.
solitarywalker: (Default)

[personal profile] solitarywalker 2012-01-07 03:07 pm (UTC)(link)
3 seems the best option to me. That said, this is a really difficult suggestion to vote on, since you propose three mutually exclusive solutions... doesn't really give the DW team a way to tell "what the people want".
exor674: Computer Science is my girlfriend (Default)

[personal profile] exor674 2012-01-08 02:40 am (UTC)(link)
If we do #1, there really should do a "openest using entry" or whatever option.

#3 is a really really bad idea, as someone might want to be able to check at a glance if a tag that they do not want public accidentally got associated with a public entry.
arethinn: glowing green spiral (Default)

[personal profile] arethinn 2012-01-09 11:48 pm (UTC)(link)
My thought would be for #2. It does need more explanation as to what it really means, and perhaps the fact that it affects who can see the tag in situations where a list of tags is displayed (if you have a tag which is only used on access-locked posts, someone who is not on your access list won't even see that it exists if they look at e.g. http://yourusername.dreamwidth.org/tag). That's a lot of text to put right there, though; maybe a clickable link to a FAQ question or something?
kerravonsen: (Default)

[personal profile] kerravonsen 2012-01-11 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
I prefer option #2, then option #3.
I DO NOT WANT option #1; it seems complicated to implement, and complicated to use once it's implemented.
coniurati: (Default)

[personal profile] coniurati 2012-01-14 08:48 am (UTC)(link)
I have a community with a lot of tags, not all of which get used right away. This means that users can't see these tags until notified OR if I maintain a post like this one where I add every new tag after creation to make it visible to members. So either being able to pick the security level upon creation (or some sort of journal default option of "make all tags public") would be really nice, otherwise while it's a good idea the implementation isn't very versatile.
cesy: "Cesy" - An old-fashioned quill and ink (Default)

[personal profile] cesy 2012-01-20 01:59 pm (UTC)(link)
2 or 1, please, not 3 - I find this information useful, and it's not available anywhere else.