Public entries friends-locking automatically after a given period

[martyna]

Title:
Public entries friends-locking automatically after a given period

Area:
Journal Entry

Summary:
A feature that friends-locks automatically designed public entries after a given period

Description:
I imagined this feature to be an option when designing who can read your entries. There are entries, which are not of strictly personal content, but one doesn't want them to stay available for everyone forever. I'd rather think here in terms of months than days. (Example: Being able to set that designed public entries lock themselves to access list only after 6 months.)
The idea has come to me while locking journal entries from my LJ and realising how many posts I wouldn't have posted straight publicly if I had this feature.

I don't know if this is feasible, how much resources it would take nor if there's a big interest, but one suggested I should post about it here.

Poll #2705 Public entries friends-locking automatically after a given period

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 61

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
31 (50.8%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
4 (6.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
11 (18.0%)

(I have no opinion)
15 (24.6%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[dragonfly]

I would use this!!

[piscinarii]

I'd use this feature :D I currently post locked mostly because I forget to go back and lock entries later.

[lightgetsin]

I would use this so hard.

Except it would have to be an option on the post entry form for people who had enabled the functionality, because there would be a small selection of posts I'd want permanently public (fic, for example).

[zarhooie]

I imagine this working like the crosspost opt-in thing works: when enabled, your entries will automatically go friends only (or private), and you will have the option to disable it for entries on a case-by-case basis.

[kyrielle]

This, yes.

[goodbyebird]

+1

[sofiaviolet]

+1

[martyna]

Yes, I thought it would be along with the "public view, access, private" choices. Like: [only access from the point when it gets x months old]

[sheelal]

Yes, this! Opt-in, like the crossposts, with case-by-case disabling.

[yvi]

I do this manually right now and YES, SO HELPFUL.

[liv]

I wouldn't use this, but I know a lot of people who would.

The only thing that worries me slightly is that it may give people a false sense of security; once something has been public for six months, it's probably all over the internet. Sure, you can turn off indexing, but basically it's only Google that respects that, shady search engines and splogs and all kinds of things that automatically aggregate RSS feeds don't care. But maybe people would find that acceptable as long as the content isn't visible directly in their journal.

[cesy]

Yes, so it should probably have some kind of warning reminding people of this.

[desh]

I'd rather the feature not exist. It bothers me that "permalinks" age and vanish all the time (especially when linking to news sites and the like), and I don't want to make it easier for Dreamwidth users to contribute to the problem.

[sky]

+1

[martyna]

Well, the link would stay they same and just say it has restricted access, no? In that case you can always contact the author to see if you can have access?
(I don't know about this stuff, just correct me if my idea is wrong.)

[desh]

Yeah, you're right that that's what would happen. I still find that situation undesirable, though.

[martyna]

What's the difference between me going back and locking by hand than have an automatic tool do it for me? Just usability, isn't it?

[desh]

Without the tool, you and Dreamwidth users in the aggregate are less likely to actually change security levels on as many posts, leading to fewer broken links overall.