Allow hidden, invitation-only communities

[dragonfly]

Title:
Allow hidden, invitation-only communities

Area:
Community Creation

Summary:
Allow us to create communities hidden from view which only invited members can join.

Description:
Moderating membership in a community by letting anyone apply but then having the mod(s) reject certain members can be wank-inducing. An option could be to create a community that requires an invitation from a moderator in order to join.

In those cases, the option of hiding even the name of the community from lists of communities and from searches would aid in reducing potential wank.

Poll #1606 Allow hidden, invitation-only communities

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 44

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
10 (22.7%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
5 (11.4%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
23 (52.3%)

(I have no opinion)
5 (11.4%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.3%)

Comments

[charmian]

I'm for making it an option to create invitation-only comms, not for making hidden ones. The logistical problems seem big, and is there really so much demand for it?

[afuna]

I agree with invitation only comms (is that already possible with a closed comm?). For not showing up on search, there is "Site wide search inclusion" and "off site search engines" in http://www.dreamwidth.org/manage/settings/?cat=privacy&authas=communityname

Though I guess that does leave the community showing up in interests searches/directory searches.

[charmian]

I think what they mean is directory searches and interest searches (although if you don't want your comm to be found, might as well not have any interests).

But then, there's also appearing on the profile pages of the members also, and on the various types of raw data that the site puts out. (Like on LJ after they implemented that thing where you if you ban someone they don't show up as a friend-of on the userinfo, there was a way to see who even the hidden friends-of were, but I can't remember how)

[afuna]

Oh, hmm, true. I didn't think about that, or rather, I'd assumed that those would still be visible even if a comm was invisible.

[charmian]

Yeah, and there's also the question of whether even the comm page will be visible, and what it'll say if someone attempts to access the comm.

[kyrielle]

Or tries to register another account with the same name....

[jeeps]

I agree with invitation only comms (is that already possible with a closed comm?).

can't folks who come across the comm still submit a request to join, even if the comm is closed?

[afuna]

Nope; you can try to contact the maintainers to ask them to let you join, and you can also subscribe to the community, but you can't actually apply to be a member. (There's another level, moderated membership, where you can apply for membership, and someone has to approve it)

[zvi]

I suspect that those who need truly invisible comms are making password protected wikis or something off LJ/DW, since you can't make invisible comms here.

[syderia]

I'm ok with invite-only comms, not so much for making them invisible.

[dingsi]

This.

[kyrielle]

This, yes.

[zvi]

Can I ask what the objection to invisibility is?

[noxie]

This would be a cool feature if you could turn it on and off. For example, when you've just created a community and you haven't had time to set it up properly yet, and maybe you want to wait a few days before it shows up on your profile and the directory. Do you know what I mean?

I also generally like the idea of having an option to exclude certain communities from showing up on your profile page. For example, when you set up a birthday community for a friend, you don't want them to accidentally come across it. Stuff like that.

[dancing_serpent]

Seconding this!

[magycmyste]

+1

[ninetydegrees]

In those cases, the option of hiding even the name of the community from lists of communities and from searches would aid in reducing potential wank.

This is assuming people wouldn't use this to create ToS-violating communities or that none of them would end up being mentioned on fandomwank or similar sites. I can't really see the drama-reducing potential.

As for invitation-only communities that's what closed communities are for.

[turlough]

+1

[cesy]

Closed communities are invitation-only, and some methods of partially hiding have already been mentioned by other commenters.

[dragonfly]

I thought a closed community meant no one could join. As in, "we're happy with our current membership, no one else need apply." So that's not the case?

[cesy]

It's "no one need apply" because you can only get in by being invited, not by requesting membership. So it's invitation-only. It tends to also mean "we're happy with our current membership", and closed comms typically have fairly low membership turnover, but it doesn't mean the membership can't change.

[dragonfly]

Maybe just a one line description of what "closed" means, then, when you go to create a community.

Unless I'm the only one who didn't know "closed" meant by invitation only.

[zvi]

I know of a comm that would really like to be invisible, isn't wanky, and doesn't violate the TOS. I don't think it necessarily has to be a wanky thing, to want to be a secret society. it just has to be a secret thing.

re: invisibility

[dragonfly]

It seems to me that SEEING an invitation-only community (maybe in your favorite fandom) that you're not invited to could be a lot more unhappiness-making than NOT SEEING an invitation-only community that you're not invited to.

But, as cesy said, apparently there are ways of almost making the comm hidden.