Allow a lower privacy level when posting

[syderia]

Title:
Allow a lower privacy level when posting

Area:
Posting

Summary:
If a journal's general privacy is defined as "Access Locked", the poster cannot pick "Everyone" as a setting when writing an entry, but has to edit it afterward. I'd like the "Everyone" setting to be accessible when posting the first time.

Description:
Currently, if the general privacy setting of a journal is set at "Access Locked", then it's impossible to make an entry public while writing it.
However, it's possible to make it public while editing it.
The situation is the same with a general setting of "Private".

I suggest that the default setting of the entry being written still be the general setting of the journal (that's after all the point), but that lower security option be available at the time of writing, without having to edit the post.

Poll #2334 Allow a lower privacy level when posting

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

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
31 (58.5%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
9 (17.0%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
6 (11.3%)

(I have no opinion)
6 (11.3%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.9%)

Comments

[ninetydegrees]

I agree that post-posting editing is annoying but I've already posted to soon or scrolled down the security menu instead of down the page and posted with the wrong security level so I actually like the fact that minimum security will be applied no matter what.

[denise]

As a side note, the upcoming redo of the update/editjournal pages for draft & scheduled posts will help address this, IMO.

[ninetydegrees]

Stop teasing!

:P

[msilverstar]

good to know

[pauamma]

Hmm. I'd like the current "minimum security" setting to be kept as is (that is, not overridable on update, needs later edit). I wouldn't object to an additional "default security, overridable on update form" setting, if that's feasible with the new update form(*). Otherwise, I'd rather keep the option as it is now.

(*) I think the UI is mostly in the settings page, not the postinig form, but I could be wrong.

[matgb]

I agree with this actually, so I'll switch from "oppose" to "with changes", I don;'t use min sec, but in the future might want to, and I've seen things get messed up easily by friends clicking the wrong thing, etc.

[cesy]

Last time this was suggested, some arguments against it were made that made sense to me (though I can't remember what they were). However, it really bugs me, and I would love to have a way to keep the default (so it's applied for post-by-email and twitter posts) but be able to change it when posting using the form.

(Basically, I want the Twitter posts to go private so I don't annoy my friends, and the only way to do that is to make the default private, but I also want to be able to post something access-locked and have it trigger the notifications, which I can't currently do without changing my account settings every time.)

[ursamajor]

Ooh. A way to distinguish default post security by dint of where it comes in from? I'd like this!

As for the original suggestion, I wouldn't mind having "Everyone" be choosable for web-posted entries, even if you've got a higher minsecurity on, but I would want some sort of confirmation to pop up - maybe not the instant you choose it, but when you actually press post, it checks your minsecurity and asks you, "Hey, your minsecurity's access only but you selected everyone, do you really mean it?"

[turlough]

I wouldn't mind having "Everyone" be choosable for web-posted entries, even if you've got a higher minsecurity on, but I would want some sort of confirmation to pop up - maybe not the instant you choose it, but when you actually press post, it checks your minsecurity and asks you, "Hey, your minsecurity's access only but you selected everyone, do you really mean it?"

I like this.

[cesy]

That would work, too, and would solve my problem.

[cheyinka]

"With changes" = these changes :)

[papercoversrock]

Love that idea!

[chagrined]

I like this too, though I'm not opposed to the idea as-is either.

[zvi]

I could go for this, but I really don't like the original suggestion. I'm pretty sure the original suggestion can only end in tears.

[kerravonsen]

+1

[triadruid]

This seems better to me, though I'm unclear what to do with client-posted entries.

[matgb]

I want the Twitter posts to go private so I don't annoy my friends, and the only way to do that is to make the default private

Untrue--my tweets still go to LJ filtered to just Jennie, if you post by email instead of using the client effect, you can put a security into the header above the post, and a userpic as well.

[cesy]

Hmm, I haven't figured out how to do that on Twittine. Is it a feature only LoudTwitter has?

[matgb]

I've never used Twittine, so can't say, basically if it allows post-by-email then you're good, if not then it's not possible.

[azurite]

This is EXACTLY my situation. But I want to be able to change it to "Everyone" when I'm posting via the form/crossposting, so I can let folks know who aren't on DW/LJ about stuff that isn't so private/access-list only.

[pseudomonas]

Definitely. Pretty much all my posts are locked, but I very occasionally want to make a public one. Happy to click through a "yes, I did mean this" warning for the odd time I do that.

[mskala]

I suggested this last time and I still believe it'd be a good thing. "Default" should mean default, not forced. I'm willing to take responsibility for my own potential mistakes, and people who aren't should not be posting at all.

[afuna]

Hm, maybe a checkbox, something like "override minimum security level?". If it's not checked, you'll still be forced to your minimum security, so posts from emails and clients where you may have just forgotten to set the security level will respect your minimum security. But if you're posting from the web interface, there's at least a manual override.

OTOH, may be made moot by the redo of update/editjournal, as denise says!

[cesy]

That would work for me, too.