Non-public websites

[azurelunatic]

Title:
Non-public websites

Area:
profile, privacy/security, styles

Summary:
Allow a user to enter a website to be listed with the same set of security options that other contact information on the profile can use.

Description:
It's not always necessary or desirable to broadcast one's website address as being associated with one's journal to the whole internet. Yet it would still be helpful to list it with one's journal, viewable to those who have been granted access -- or sometimes, merely to all registered users, rather than to all the spammers the internet has to offer.

Since the website is also used in building the journal page itself, it might take a bit more doing than simply restricting who may view it on the profile page.

One can of course approximate the effect by putting a public link in the bio to a secured entry listing the website, although this method is roundabout and makes one's readers click a few more times to reach their destination.

Poll #4085 Non-public websites

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 44

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
27 (61.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (15.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
2 (4.5%)

(I have no opinion)
8 (18.2%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[msilverstar]

Non-public profile info would be good in general. Implementing this one by itself seems counter-productive.

[charmian]

I'm not sure if it would be counterproductive, but in general I agree that we should be allowed to put in more non public info.

[feathertail]

+1. You know how we were talking about using drag-and-drop customization to build the Create Entry page, in that news post? What if your whole Profile page was like that, and you could flag each module as private or public? That would be perfect for this (and would make profiles more personal too).

[noracharles]

+1

[goodbyebird]

+1

[jazzfish]

Ooh, nice. +1

[zing_och]

+1

[matgb]

Not sure about each module, I think you'd need some basics that're always public. Especially stuff that's discoverable through other means, illusion of privacy is bad.

But yes, definitely want to have non-public website. My site is currently my LJ, but at some point I want to close down my LJ for search engines so that everything comes here, a reverse link is bad for that, but I'd still like users here to know how to find me there if they prefer reading there.

[turlough]

Not sure about each module, I think you'd need some basics that're always public. Especially stuff that's discoverable through other means, illusion of privacy is bad.

+1

[azurelunatic]

Hmmmmmmm. This makes me think about an access-only or private crosslink link, for crossposting where you want the link for your own purposes but don't want to publicize it, particularly for when the offsite version is locked and/or without comments.

[azurelunatic]

Submitted.