Make a public entry resistant to bulk privacy change

[lauredhel]

Title:
Make a public entry resistant to bulk privacy change

Area:
Access locking

Summary:
A way to make particular public entries resistant to bulk privacy change.

Description:
I go through and access-lock older posts in swathes, using the Edit Journal Privacy tool. It would be great to have a way to set a particular post to stay public regardless of bulk security changes applied to that month/year of posts.

Problem Being Solved: Sometimes a post is linked at access_fandom or metafandom or whatever. I'd prefer to have to be able to set a flag on just those particular posts to stay public, ignoring bulk changes.

Drawbacks - Maybe someone who had set a post to stay public would erroneously think that it had been changed to private after a bulk change? That's the feature working as designed, of course, but a warning could be appropriate at the time of the bulk privacy change, in case the flag was set back past living memory.

Or perhaps there could be two 'levels' of bulk change: one regular one that ignores the StayPublic flags, and one 'emergency/absolute' one that overrides absolutely everything?

Or perhaps the bulk privacy change could be more fine-grained in another way, like listing the entries to be locked and having a tickybox option on each. (It would still be nice to be able to set some sort of flag on posts to readily pick them out from the tickybox list, if this were to be the case.)

Poll #2943 Make a public entry resistant to bulk privacy change

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 54

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
19 (35.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
19 (35.2%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
6 (11.1%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (18.5%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[nafs]

I definitely like this idea and see how it could be necessary to someone. My suggestion is, could it be tied to tags? ie "change privacy settings of all posts except those tagged foo" or "change privacy settings only of posts tagged foo"

[syderia]

I like this.

[poulpette]

With change: for this.

[schnurble]

+1

[zeborah]

This.

[kerravonsen]

+1

[azurelunatic]

I would also adore a more comprehensive bulk security editor that would work with tags, especially Boolean operations on tags (for example: change to access-only all entries with tag:wincest AND tag:nc-17; change to public all entries with tag:fic NOT tag:wip).

[pseudomonas]

Using tags rather than yet more options would be more useful.

[goodbyebird]

Tags would be a useful option, but so would flagging. If you have flagged entries, after you've run the bulk privacy change, the page could say something like Privacy change successful.
You have flagged entries that remain unaltered: followed by the entry links.

[holyschist]

+1

[azurelunatic]

I was picturing something like that, but with links and also titles, tags, and radio buttons (change privacy, leave unaltered, with the leave-it-be option auto-ticked), so you could then go down the list and if you remembered what it was you could act appropriately, and then push some sort of continue button to edit the security on the flagged entries.

[goodbyebird]

Oh, I had in mind that the link would be the actual subject line of the post :)

[gchick]

With changes: stickiness should be available for all security levels, not just public posts. Imagine someone who goes access-only for a time, then at a later date wants to take her whole journal public except for that one post where she posted her RL name and address.

[thedivinegoat]

+1

[eruthros]

+1

[stasha2g]

+1

[kerravonsen]

+1

[havocthecat]

I don't know, it feels to me like it's too complicated to bother with. :(

[denise]

Hey -- just wanted to let you know, in case you come back to this entry, that the reason it's marked as 'rejected' is because our redesign of the Edit Journal pages (along with the redesign to the update page) will make the process of changing security in bulk a lot easier. (It'll be moving to a more inbox-like "check off the items you want to act upon, then do the thing" method.) So, it'll give roughly the same set of options as your last alternate suggestion!