Screen all comments when entry is set to screen 'all comments'

[yvi]

Title:
Screen all comments when entry is set to screen 'all comments'

Area:
Comments

Summary:
When a post is set to screen all comments, comments by the journal owner or moderators still go through without screening. They should also be screened by default.

Description:
When I set a post to screen all comments, the fact that if I comment (top-level comments, replies are another issue and in fact I am working on the suggestion made here: http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/74256.html ) it shows up unscreened is very counter-intuitive and often undesired in my experience. This happens with all comments of people who can 'manage'; a journal, so for personal journals the owner and for communities the moderators (or admins? maintainers? I am not good at that distinction).

If these people want their comments to be unscreened, they have the privileges to unscreen the comments themselves after posting. Also, the current behavior makes testing whether an entry is actually set to screen comments difficult, especially when a community has several administrators, example: maintainer 1 posts, sets to screened, maintainer 2 comments (maybe to submit something for an anon challenge) and wonders why the comment wasn't screened.

I propose that the setting for comment screening should apply to all users. The other way this could be done would be to have a new setting 'all comments except mine', but I personally think that's too many settings.

Edited to add: The text you get when commenting even says "will be screened" even though it won't be.

Poll #1613 Screen all comments when entry is set to screen 'all comments'

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

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
46 (92.0%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
3 (6.0%)

(I have no opinion)
1 (2.0%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[dancing_serpent]

Oh yes, please!

[pauamma]

Someone who subscribed to all comments won't be notified if the comment is posted screened, which IMO is a fatal flaw. I may support a "post comment screened" checkbox on the comment form itself (haven't thought about the implications much), but not a change in meaning of the existing option. (Although a clarification of what it really means would be nice.)

[ninetydegrees]

Someone who subscribed to all comments won't be notified if the comment is posted screened

Can you explain? I don't understand how implementing Yvi's suggestion would have an impact on notifications. What currently happens when you subscribe to an entry who's got the 'screen all comments' option turned on?

[pauamma]

Currently, when I post a comment unscreened, someone subscribed to all comments will be notified, whether I post it unscreened because the entry or journal is set to let me, or because of the special cases (entry poster, comm maintainers) that this suggestion would remove. If I post a comment screened then unscreen it, they won't get notified.

[ninetydegrees]

Ok how is this related to Yvi suggesting that special cases stop being special and the 'expected' behavior applies to all comments? I still don't understand how people not getting any notifications could be an issue since it's already what happens as you kindly explained to me.

[pauamma]

Say I post an entry in my journal and set the screening options to "screen all comments". You see that entry and subscribe to all comments to it. If I post a comment on that entry, you will currently get notified, because my comment was post unscreened, despite the option setting. With your suggested change, you wouldn't get notified, even if I unscreened the comment right after posting it.

[yvi]

I am kind of failing to see how that is a bad thing. There is currently no way for the owner of that journal to not have their comment mailed in that situation and that, for me, is a privacy concern, especially as if they select 'screen all comments', most users will expect this will apply to *all* comments.

[pauamma]

It's a bad thing (IMO) because it takes an option from me, the poster (namely, the ability to set the entry to screen all comments except my own). Rename that option or change the description to make it match what it really does, fine. Add another option to do what you want, fine. But please, don't take it away from everyone because you don't like what it does.

[triadruid]

Counteroffer: Fix it so that the comment gets mailed when it's unscreened. That seems like it would address both of your concerns.

[pauamma]

It only fixes the "can't get notifications of owner's/poster's new comments" one, unless I'm missing something. (There is precedent for that, though.) I would still lose the "force all comments in my journal/on my entry *except mine* to post screened" option. (I could work around that, but it would be IMO as tedious as the current option is if I want my own comments screened too.)

[ninetydegrees]

Who says the owner's going to answer? There are lots of posts where all comments are screened and the owner doesn't answer any of them and the person subscribing to all comments can't know whether they will or won't. Edit: they may not even know whether comment are screened if they don't reply themselves.

To me, the issue, if this is one, already exists and is not tied to Yvi's suggestion at all.

[pauamma]

Who says the owner's going to answer?

yvi does:

When I set a post to screen all comments, the fact that if I comment ([...]) it shows up unscreened is very counter-intuitive

(emphasis mine)

[ninetydegrees]

She says that *if* the owner answers, they expect the comment to be screened because that's what 'screen all comments' mean. She doesn't talk about readers subscribing to all comments and expecting notifications of the owner's replies. That's two different POVs. As a reader, I can't know whether all comments are screened, unless it's mentioned in the entry or I reply to the post, and I can't know whether the owner is going to reply so I wouldn't be surprised not to get any notifications because that's one of the points of screening comments.

Sorry but I don't get your point at all and not amount of explaining seems to make me understand what you're trying to show here and how Yvi's suggestion would change current behavior in a detrimental way.

[pauamma]

Does http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/171293.html?thread=1201181#cmt1201181 help?

[ninetydegrees]

Yes, it does, because you actually object to the suggestion, not to notifications not being sent, which is existing behavior in my opinion.

[pauamma]

Notifications not being sent is not existing behavior when:
1- I post an entry in my journal and set screening to "all comments" as it currently works
2- You subscribe to all comments on that entry (or previously subscribed to all comments on the journal)
3- I comment on that entry (since the comment is unscreened regardless of the screening options, you get notified)

Ditto, if:
4- I post an entry in a community and set screening to "all comments" as it currently works
5- You subscribe to all comments on that entry (or previously subscribed to all comments on the community)
6- A community administrainer comments on that entry (since the comment is unscreened regardless of the screening options, you get notified)

You said (in a comment upthread):

As a reader, I can't know whether all comments are screened

But you know that currently, journal owner (or community administrainer) comments are never screened, no matter what screening is set to. Maybe you rely on that knowledge. Or maybe I, the journal owner (somehow knowing you subscribe to all comments on the entry or the journal), rely on you having that knowledge. If either applies, then the change would break your expectations, mine, or both, with no way to restore them.

[ninetydegrees]

I can only repeat myself: notifications are not being sent when comments are unscreened. This is existing behavior. Yvi's suggestion would make unscreened comments become screened. If you want to object to some notifications no longer being sent then you need to object to comments no longer being posted unscreened - as you finally did - because that's the change.

As for your last paragraph, 1) some people don't know that 2) current behavior being expected behavior is your POV. Like Yvi said, I consider this, as a poster and as a reader, counter-intuitive and actually expect 'screened all comments' to mean screen all comments, including mine, including community owners'. So when you say the change would break my expectations, no it wouldn't: it would finally make screening work the way I expect it to work!

Edit: I need to add that I have the feeling neither of us is hearing what the other is trying to say and it has passed the point where this conversation is productive, if it ever was, so sorry in advance if you reply to this comment and I don't. I think we're both wasting our time and probably Yvi's time too.

[pauamma]

then you need to object to comments no longer being posted unscreened - as you finally did

Aaaaaaaah, so that is where the breakdown was. I meant that (unscreened = posted unscreened) from the beginning. Reading this (as you did) as "posted screened, then unscreened", you would be absolutely correct, and right to be frustrated at my (apparent) denseness.

[yvi]

I am not sure what you mean, either. People who have subscribed to all comments *shouldn't* get notifications of screened comments unless they manage the journal. But anyway, I also don't see how this relates to this suggestion, which is about people commenting in journals they manage...

[ninetydegrees]

You mean administrators ;) And I've just realized DW didn't use 'maintainer' at all except in FAQs (I'll mention that on dw_docs). Thanks for making me check.

[yvi]

Heh, I can never keep that terminology straight :) Is 'moderators' only for moderating posts then, do you know that?

[ninetydegrees]

Yes moderators only moderate. They don't have any other 'powers'. ;)

[kerravonsen]

Yay! You made the Suggestion! 8-)

[ex_pseudonym472]

Don't mind me, I'm just here to pet your icon *pets*