![[staff profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user_staff.png){kind=small}
mark) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2009-11-03 10:16 pm
Community posting options overhaul
Title:
Community posting options overhaul
Area:
Communities
Summary:
Community posting access management options are confusing right now and not flexible enough in some cases. I propose adding a few buttons and changing a few behaviors to make community management easier.
Description:
Right now, you can specify for your community that 'all members can post' or 'select members can post'. If you specify the former, you can then go in and disable certain members abilities to post, which is somewhat confusing. If you select the latter, new members default to not being able to post, but the option doesn't tell you that. It's confusing.
I propose that 'who can post' management for communities be changed to the following:
A) All members may post.
This has several effects: you can NOT disable member posting on a case-by-case basis, and it enables posting for all members. It does exactly what it says, it lets everybody post.
If you have problems with a member, you can kick them from the community and ban them. This removes their ability to post by removing them from the community.
B) Select members may post.
This option allows you to control on a member-by-member basis who can post or not. This option would have a dropdown box next to it allowing you to specify:
B.1) New members may post, or
B.2) New members may NOT post.
This allows you to specify what new members are allowed to do. Right now this option is conflated with the radio box of 'who can post' when it should really be its own option.
Furthermore, I propose adding two buttons to the members management page if you are in "select members may post" mode:
1) Enable Posting Access for All Members
2) Disable Posting Access for All Members
These buttons would allow you to quickly shut off a community to new posts if needed, reenable it later, or generally manage your community without having to go through page on page on page of members disabling or enabling boxes and saving your changes.
...
This suggestion spawned from an IRC discussion in #dw. What do you all think?
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
26 (55.3%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
19 (40.4%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
1 (2.1%)
(I have no opinion)
1 (2.1%)
(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm familiar with what you suggested when it comes to message boards, and it's an endless source of frustration for me. It would definitely put me off of communities who decide to use the setting (either out of annoyance or because I wasn't that interested in the community in the first place).
To be honest, I don't see the use from a maintainer's standpoint. I tend to put the rules in the profile, and now we also have the option of a sticky entry. If someone's going to ignore the rules, they will do so right away or after the X amount of days are over.
Instead of your proposal, I'd much prefer to have a setting that allows me to have new members' posts be moderated for X amount or days, or X number of posts (though if it's going to be the latter perhaps with a time limit; not all members are active, and it would be confusing for someone to get a "your entry is in the queue because you're new" message when they post for the first time but have been a member for months).
In regards to Mark's proposal, I'd also like to mention that I quite like having all members be allowed to post and then revoke posting access for a period of time as a means of enforcing the rules / punishment for breaking the rules.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(I would prefer it if my browser/rlist didn't autopopulate responses to radio button polls on my rlist, though, because for this it seemed to think I would prefer this not be implemented, and for the suggestions poll just above this (which I also liked) it auto-selected "I have no opinion."
I know that this is not really the place for such things, but does anyone reading these comments have any idea why I might be having this behavior on my reading list? I'm running Firefox 3.5.2 on Mac OS X / 10.5.8, if that explains anything.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This has several effects: you can NOT disable member posting on a case-by-case basis, and it enables posting for all members. It does exactly what it says, it lets everybody post.
If you have problems with a member, you can kick them from the community and ban them. This removes their ability to post by removing them from the community.
Aside from that I'm for it
no subject
That way, you have a screen against (a) people who join a bunch of comms to spam and (b) people who need (ahem) guidance to clarify the comm rules, posting guidelines, or what-have-you when they're first starting out in a comm, even if they may have joined a while back.
(I'm sure I'm not the only one who joins comms on first seeing them rather than right before deciding to post there for the first time; I'm *definitely* sure I'm not the only one who at some point skimmed the comm info on joining but still somehow faceplanted in the social etiquette on posting at some later date.)
no subject
(even better)
no subject
no subject