Use Default Reading Filter by Default

[zvi]

Title:
Use Default Reading Filter by Default

Area:
reading filter, reading page

Summary:
The default reading filter should be applied to the reading page when the reading page is viewed by anyone, not just when viewed by the logged-in journal owner

Description:
The default reading filter is how one's reading page is usually served to one. However, if one has to view the reading page while logged out (maybe one is at a computer where one suspects they might be keylogged), one is currently obligated to have all subscribed journals appear on it.

I also would like the default reading page to be default for all viewers because I have an off-label use for reading filters, to wit: if something keeps appearing in my network page that I would really rather not see, I will subscribe to it and *not* put it on my default reading filter page, and then it is neither on my usual reading page nor on my network. However, if I approach my reading list while not logged in (maybe I just cleared cookies from my cache, maybe I'm at the library and about to login, whatever) then whatever it is that I was trying to avoid may pop up on my reading page.

I can't imagine any real downside to this. I mean, I guess somebody could put in the work to figure out which of your subscriptions were in your default reading filter or not, so there's a minor loss of privacy, but other than that, I can't think of anything.

Poll #2258 Use Default Reading Filter by Default

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 53

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
8 (15.1%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
8 (15.1%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
29 (54.7%)

(I have no opinion)
8 (15.1%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[foxfirefey]

I think the main thing that needs to happen here is to have a privacy level added to reading filters, and if the default filtering level is public, then it can be used when the viewer is logged out or not the user. Otherwise, yes, it could be a bit of a privacy reveal that people will not like.

[zvi]

See, I'm not actually convinced that public reading filters have any use, so I didn't suggest that. I know it's how it's handled on LJ, but *shrug* just because they did it doesn't necessarily mean it worked.

[foxfirefey]

Public reading filters can have some use! Like, for instance, I have a Dreamwidth reading filter that I'd be perfectly happy to share with others. They are even more useful here than on LJ, because paid accounts here have the ability to make super special reading filters that free users can't, and if they could make those filters public, the free users would be able to go read that paid user's compilation. (Of course, that could be an argument to make filters NOT usable publicly, ha.)

I think the minor loss of privacy you mention is going to be a much bigger deal to some others than it is to you, especially towards lurker personas.

It wouldn't be much work for a person to figure out whether or not they were in your default reading filter--all they'd have to do would be to make a public post and then check your reading page. That's a pretty low bar of discovery for something some people might not want to share.

[zvi]

But being off the default view doesn't necessarily mean being unread! It just means not being on the default view. For instance, I have a number of sexy picture tumbler feeds encircled. I do check them out on a regular basis, but I don't have them in the default filter, both because they're uncut and NSFW, but also because I like them better when they're all by themselves than when they're mixed in with descriptions of pilling the cat, or customers unsexily sucking, etc.

I actually don't think the privacy loss will be a big deal for lurkers, since no one knows they're here to care about their reading pages anyway. I concede that for the people who use DW for a small circle of close personal friends, it might be an issue if someone finds out they're subscribed to but not on the default filter.

[willow]

Actually I haven't been able to figure out how to subscribe to someone and have them NOT on the default filter. I guess my brain just hasn't been clicking. So I just don't subscribe to them anymore, but maintain giving them access and go peek at their journals when I have the chance, while hoping that the reasons I unscubscribed don't show up.

Hmmm. Now this is OT. Do you know if DW plans on having a way to either a) follow posts by a user that have particular tags or b) follow all posts BUT particular tags?

Ex: All posts but tag: political, tag: french music scene ?

Should I suggest?

[zvi]

You can track that sort of thing or you can arrange your filters for that (although there are some reports that filtering by tag is a bit wonky). I think you have to be paid for that, though. Do you want a year of paid time, I've got some sitting around.

[willow]

Can you point me to the info for tracking via filter?

Do you want a year of paid time, I've got some sitting around - makes me think of Mother Nature from that stop animation/claymation holiday special you like so much.

If I can track via filter then yeah, paid time is ok. Though I still wish I could figure out what happened in this user account that has so messed up storage of comments.

Also, do you know if one of these days is DW considering importing only specific entries from another journal? M'curious.

[cimorene]

I've made a lot of use of other people's public reading filters.

[pauamma]

My LJ fgroups are deliberately all private - including Default View. I would definitely want my DW reading filters to be that way too - including the default one.

[azurelunatic]

This. Because I do believe that some people on LJ test this, and if the default view were public on DW, some people would probably look for it here as well. And if it's something you're fine with someone else knowing, that's all well and good, but if someone's use of the default view is solving a social problem involving someone who will be hurt if they don't think they're getting enough attention, it would be bad to take away the ability to have information on the default view be private.

[syntheid]

+1

[kyrielle]

+1

[miang]

+1

[sorchasilver]

+1

[aveleh]

+1

[instantramen]

+1

[alixtii]

Would the-person-who-is-not-you have the option of seeing the full list?

[zvi]

Hmmm. Actually, at the moment, I'm not sure how to make the logged in journal owner see All Subscriptions. Although there is an option listed for that on the navstrip, it appears to kick one to the Default Filter, not actually to all subscriptions. I'm going to go put in a support request about that, actually.

[triadruid]

Yeah, filter=0 appears to work differently here than on LJ, and I agree with your assessment of what it's doing (I have Suggestions and some other floody communities excluded from Default).

[charmian]

I'm only for this if it is NOT the default setting (in other words, that your default reading filter is not public unless you specifically click the option to make it so, and that this is adequately documented. As an option, I have no problem with it, but I much prefer that there at least be the option of keeping default filters private.)

I'm sort of confused also: what is the current behavior on DW? I know that on LJ you can make your groups private, in which case others can't see them, or you can publicize them, but it seems like on DW this privacy feature doesn't exist, because when I go to create a new subscription filter, I don't see an option to make the filter public/private? Or does it?

Is it currently possible on DW to make any subscription filter public? If so, then why not just create a "publicdefault" filter, make that public, and then view that when logged out?

[yvi]

DW doesn't have public reading filters yet. They are all handled as private at the moment.

There is a bug open here: http://bugs.dwscoalition.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2174 based on this suggestion: http://dw-suggestions.dreamwidth.org/180281.html

[charmian]

Thanks for the info! I was confused and wondered if the thing was that the default reading filter was considered special, and couldn't be made public.

[melannen]

I, sadly, agree on the wank bit. Believe me, if people start to find out that they're on *bnf's reading list but not her default filter, there will be wank.

(Also, I personally surf logged out on purpose sometimes in order to see the journals that aren't on my default filter, because I am too lazy to consistently remember to add journals to the _all filter and I don't know of any other easy way to do it.)

...has anyone yet suggested a mechanism just to take journals off your network page? Because I would so use that so hard.

[zvi]

I haven't seen that, but I didn't remember the "make filters public" suggestion, so I could have missed it. Did you try searching the comm?

[melannen]

There doesn't seem to be anything in the community, but there is the long-term killfiles bug, which that might be a bit too close to.

Maybe I'll post it here anyway if no-one else does; couldn't hurt.

[foxfirefey]

I think killfiles is a bit different--aimed more at killing posts from showing up from people you don't want to read from in, say, communities you are in. Snooze might be similar, since it's taking someone off your reading page for a temporary period.

[ciaan]

I agree this should be an optional setting - so the default filter (or other filters) could be set to public, only logged-in registered users, access list, or private.

[triadruid]

This actually makes perfect sense to me for my use case, but I agree the potential for dramamongering is high enough to make me want to add an opt-in feature to it (I'd say opt-out, except that it would be the dreaded Change To Current Behavior).