stargazered: (Default)
ѕтαяgαzєяє∂ ([personal profile] stargazered) wrote in [site community profile] dw_suggestions2015-11-04 09:38 am

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

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


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%)

ext_3679: (Default)

With changes...

[identity profile] fiddlingfrog.livejournal.com 2017-02-22 01:41 am (UTC)(link)
I've been thinking about how to make a really great reposting system on LiveJournal for a long time, and after considering both of LJ's attempts I think the best approach is to stop thinking about it as a repost/reblog/retweet and instead look at it like embedding.

To start, an author would mark their entry as repostable. This either occurs as an option in the editor, or it happens via inserting a piece of code in the entry the way LiveJournal does. This would place a button in the entry that any reader could click on to repost that entry.

When the button is clicked a new entry is started in the editor with an embed code for the original entry. The reposter can add commentary above, below, or around the embedded entry but cannot change anything inside that entry. They can post to their journal or to a community, they can make it access-only, private, or public, and they can enable or disable comments - in short, they can structure this entry just the same as if it were another entry with no repost.

Now there's a new entry somewhere on DW that has that first entry embedded in it. Immediately the system places a comment on the original entry stating that the entry was reposted, who reposted it, where, and maybe include a few lines of any text surrounding the embed (sort of like the pingback system on LJ.)

Inside this new entry the embedded post is clearly marked as such. The embed clearly displays the original author, any metadata (time/date, location, userpic, etc...), and not only shows the comment count but includes a quick-reply form so that readers can reply directly to the embedded post. The repost button would also be active so that new readers could embed the original entry in their own journals or communities.


If the original author chooses to stop making the entry repostable, then the embedded version will disappear from the reposts, but those repost entries and any comments on them will remain. The embedded version will also respect the privacy settings of the original post - if public then everyone can see the embed, if private then no-one but them can see the embed, and if made access-only then only a select few will see the embed.
alyndra: (circular reasoning)

Re: With changes...

[personal profile] alyndra 2018-12-15 01:40 am (UTC)(link)
This idea is fascinating to me. It makes me wonder if it could be done just with a (probably large) chunk of code that people can copy/paste into their entries: one that makes a new window pop up with the Create Entries page open on it and the embed to the original site already inserted. Kind of like I saw someone share a textarea chunk of code that created a poll with just a "Kudos" button.

You would probably still have to leave it up to the reblogger to manually let the OP know, I'm guessing, but it could be an interesting work-around!