Optional "Re-Posting" to add on to current "Share This Entry"

[stargazered]

Title:
Optional "Re-Posting" to add on to current "Share This Entry"

Area:
Share This Entry

Summary:
A re-posting option (that can be turned on or off, so up to the poster) that allows posts to be shared and appear in journals and reading pages like re-tweeting: redirects to the original post (so original poster still controls it)

Description:
The "Share this entry" of Dreamwidth is reaching a point where it's lacking, as it depends only on email and nothing else! Keeping what it has now (emailing), more options should be added. Like Re-Postng, only if the account or community turns this option on. This can be like Retweeting or Replurking: It appears the journal (thus counted as an update) and consequently the reading page of those subscribed to that journal, but it shows the original post and redirects you to it once clicked.

I believe Facebook has something like this, where "(user) shared -> (details here)" and it's the original.

Therefore the original poster still has all power of their post, should they want to edit or delete it. The problem with sites like Tumblr is that reblogging makes it an entirely new and separate post, so the original poster loses control of it (like if they wanted to delete or edit, they cannot because it will still circulate around, even when they delete their accounts). This will help with the exposure of many posts that can welcome plenty of discussion with this already excellent commenting system.

Also, not everyone wants their posts to be reposted in such a manner, even if their account is primarily public, because of personal and privacy reasons. The option to turn it on and off will be required (including whole communities to have the option to turn it on and off, since some communities are personal?)

Reposting also should not be an option for locked posts, obviously for privacy reasons.

Also if possible, individual posts can have the option to be reposted, like how currently some posts can have specific levels of content ratings.

As for a count of how many times it's been reposted, I'm not sure if that is required, but it seems to be consistent with most places that allow this form of sharing, so maybe on or off?

Dreamwidth's always been wonderful in keeping good privacy options, good flexibility when it comes to filters and keeping power to the poster. So if it has a sharing option like this, it should have one that upholds its ideals while still giving us that option to spread posts around. At the moment, the ideas and points I have suggested keep the reposting of Dreamwidth posts to just other Dreamwidth accounts, just to keep this simple first.

Poll #18013 Optional "Re-Posting" to add on to current "Share This Entry"

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 50

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
14 (28.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
17 (34.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
15 (30.0%)

(I have no opinion)
3 (6.0%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.0%)

Comments

[kyrielle]

I like the way this suggestion approaches it, despite not wanting re-posting of my stuff. Optional to the journal owner on a per-journal or per-entry basis, public entries only, especially if it's opt-in, is kind of my favorite approach.

That said...it runs the risk of option fatigue and being an Often Undiscovered Feature if it's opt-in. But opt-out is not my ideal, so...yeah.

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it's a not-bad-to-me idea.

(If it *was* going to be added, options to share on other media like Twitter might also be something some people would like, but...that complicates it again. I'm not sure it needs complication.)

[kaberett]

Re option fatigue/undiscovered/etc: one way to make it work might be to have a "make this post shareable" checkbox next to the Crosspost This Entry checkbox on the Create Entries page, that gets automatically greyed out for security levels other than public. For example. (This would probably mean that unit would need retitling, but it seems to me like the place it would go...)