![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
melannen) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2011-03-31 04:59 pm
Note on profile if a journal can be searched
Title:
Note on profile if a journal can be searched
Area:
privacy
Summary:
People can set their journal to be indexable or not by outside search engines, and also whether they can be searched through site search. It would be nice to be able to tell which journals have that turned on and which don't.
Description:
Right now, AFAIK, there is no way to tell from looking at a person's journal whether the journal content can be indexed/cached by Google and other outside services, and also which who can find the journal from site search. I suggest that this information be included somewhere on the profile, even if it's just the extended profile.
It would be useful in several different cases:
- Some people prefer not to leave comments in journals that can be publicly indexed, due to stalkers or other privacy issues. This would make it easier for them to tell which journals are (relatively) safe.
- When people are compiling linkspams, newsletters, or similar overviews, it would be helpful to know which relevant journals won't show up on search and will need to be checked individually.
- Knowing whether a person allows search and outside indexing is a useful piece of information regarding their overall feelings on privacy (in the linkspam example, say, people might decide to ask about linking a post widely if the owner has indexing and search turned off.)
- Having the information on the profile would remind people that the setting exists and they need to keep an eye on it.
And etcetera.
Downsides: There might be privacy concern over people not wanting their searchability to be publicly visible, but I'm having trouble seeing why anyone might need that kept a secret. There also might be issues if people comment in a journal assuming indexing is off, and the journal owner later turns it on, but that sort of thing is already a risk with any sort of semi-public posting.
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
21 (40.4%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
0 (0.0%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
11 (21.2%)
(I have no opinion)
18 (34.6%)
(Other: please comment)
2 (3.8%)
no subject
I have outside searching turned off and DW searching turned on, and I'm trying to sort out my thoughts on whether I'd want those facts posted in my profile. My immediate thought is "No! Don't make me publicly announce how much privacy I want!" but as you say, I can't figure out why it matters.
I can see opportunities for wank coming from it, but I can imagine wank coming from pretty much any change in publicly-viewable info. And I don't think it's got big opportunities for wank. I can see more confusion caused by people who don't understand what this label is on their journal.
I can't think of any real objections. The idea makes me nervous, but that's probably just paranoia.
no subject
My though was that privacy-maximizers could only be helped by having people aware of their preference, and privacy-minimizers, since they don't care about privacy, wouldn't care. I could only think of two possible objections:
1. If people think they might face hostility or deliberate violation of their privacy *because* of their preferences. I can see how this might happen? But I've never actually heard of it happening, and I've seen a lot of LJ wank - even when we have the periodic debates about public/private it doesn't seem to go to the really hostile places a lot of debates do. And I think the sort of people who deliberately violate people's privacy preferences would be just as likely to do so whether there was a note in the profile or not.
2. If people are afraid that making their setting known will make people less likely to post - privacy-maximizers are afraid people will stop leaving comments if they know they'll end up on google cache, privacy-minimizers afraid people will stop leaving comments if they know they won't. I can sympathize, but it seems like an ethically indefensible position.
no subject
I expect there would be wank, because mygods, there has been wank about the fonts used on "friends only" banners; there is no setting or feature so innocuous it cannot inspire wank. I expect the wank would be tiny and erratic, like wank about "friends only" banners. Potential wank is no reason not to have this listed on profile pages. Especially as small and pointless as the wank would be.
Knowing someone was/was not Google searchable would change how I commented in some journals; it would probably let me relax & post more in public posts that weren't searchable. In that sense, it'd be a good change.
OTOH, there are people who check my journal whom I don't like, don't want watching me. I don't want them to realize "oh, I should create a feed to watch her" instead of attempting to find me at Google. (They are, for the most part, technically clueless people. I'm not sure they know how to create feeds.) (Obviously, I'm not speaking of DW users.) I am nervous about handing them *any* info about my online habits, because any info increases the chance that they'll figure out enough of how the web works to cause me more stress & grief.
I grant that this is a very, very small chance. I did mention paranoia, right? I'm not capable of rationally evaluating the likelihoods of various outcomes here.
All the troubles I can consciously come up with seem innocuous and easy to ignore (even in my twitchy-paranoid state; I know what risks I'm taking just by making public posts at all, and this wouldn't increase them), but I'm still stuck with some bit in the back of my mind doing the wide-eyed back-into-corner shaking-head thing at the idea.
I was kind of hoping that someone else would come along and articulate exactly what was making me nervous so I could either say "yes! THAT is the problem with this proposed change!" or "yes! And now that I understand how that's just silly, I can go along with this change, which will make me willing to post more comments!" Neither of those have happened.
It sounds like a good idea. It makes me twitchy. I don't know why.
no subject
no subject
Some people would be. I put my trust in the people, not the settings; in some journals, I wouldn't relax no matter how private the post was. If my main concern was someday-this-might-be-visible, I wouldn't post at all. I know that for a while, when editing LJ posts, they became public no matter what their previous settings were. I don't advocate making policy/coding decisions based on the panic-levels of people who don't understand that the journal owner gets to decide the publicity level, and gets to change her mind if she wants.
I can't think of any problems from stating that publicity level on the profile (other than data clutter, which isn't one of my worries); it just makes me nervous.
I am actually fairly annoyed that I can't figure out exactly why. I don't like reminders that I have weird paranoia triggers; it makes me want to say, "Sure, add this setting! Obviously I'm only twitchy about it because I'm paranoid, and CLUBBING THAT TO DEATH with over-exposure to things that make it hurt is the best possible way to get rid of it quickly!" Which, um. Doesn't seem like the healthiest approach to irrational emotional reactions.
no subject
Also, the people I know who are very cautious about posting in searchable journals already know how to find out which journals are searchable (hint: try to search for them. Or, hey, ask the journal owner.) and know that it's a risk they're taking. This is already an issue.
If anything, it seems like the profile setting would make it safer for those people, because they'd have an easier time finding out if a journal they previously thought was protected no longer is.
I guess I can see where this could be a problem if a bunch of people who previously didn't care started paying attention and then got blindsided, but I don't really see that happening - I suspect the only people who would even notice are those who already pay attention.
no subject
I acknowledge your point about the possibility of people finding other ways to track a non-searchable journal, but... again, I think that's already a risk. It seems like anybody who was web-savvy and obsessed enough to a) be stalking you, b) notice the profile setting, and c) set up an alternate method would also be web-savvy and obsessed enough to notice you had indexing off even without a notice in your profile. It's not as if the information can be hidden - all anybody has to do is try to search on you and they'll know whether they can or not.
And I should probably clarify: I was thinking a tiny little thing up around "account type" and "journal creation date" that wouldn't necessarily even be noticeable unless somebody was already paying attention.
no subject
Or indeed just hit 'view source'. From the HEader of
[meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow, noarchive" />
[meta name="googlebot" content="noindex, nofollow, noarchive, nosnippet" />
non searchable.
no subject
Anyone web-savvy & stalking me has found me. I'm not remotely difficult to find; I have 10+ years identity with a single username across dozens of sites. Some of them feed into content aggregate sites.
Anyone not web-savvy is not likely to have any idea what those 2-5 extra words mean, or how to use them.
It's just... yeah. Twitchy about privacy, ergo twitchy about privacy changes, regardless of whether they're beneficial. It's soothing that nobody's managed to describe any problems I could imagine actually bothering me in practice.
no subject
In the past (elsewhere), I've spent real effort posting properly formatted posts to comms that were public, meaning them to be public facing and findable. One of the things that saw me disengage from comms was finding some of those public posts were hidden from search, and thus not public, thus the work I put into formatting them properly was partially wasted.
I'm much less likely to make informed posts on an area my knowledge is strong in to a comm with search switched off, and I'd rather not waste my time with such comms, they simply don't suit me, if I want something locked down, I'll lock it, I've never understood search removal choices, if it's still public it's public.
So yeah, I want this, for different reasons. Possibly a note on the update page when posting to a comm "note, this comm has minimised it's search presence so your public post might not be found easily by general public readers"?
no subject
I wouldn't go so far as to put it on the update page though; I think a line in the profile (maybe up where it gives the account type and creation date) would be just visible enough.
no subject
This may seem like an obscure Intellectual Property issue - but it's the argument that makes comment importation from elsewhere acceptable.
Searchability as defined by robots.txt is a very thin shield. I wouldn't rely on it for anything - especially not if I had stalker issues.
Even posting in someone else's locked post is not necessarily safe - they can always make the post public later.
no subject
DW/LJ has already established that the fact that a comment was made when a post was locked still allows the journal owner the right to unlock later, and that's a risk the commenter is taking, based on their trust in the journal owner; this would have to work on the same principle. (As it already does - as it stands you just have to get slightly more creative to find out if the journal is searchable than to find out if it's locked, but the overall privacy/trust issues wouldn't change because of making it more visible.)
no subject
There's no IP issue - as you say, unlock later is already established as a valid thing for the journal owner to do - in part based on the IP principle above.
I think I just have an issue with public-but-not-searchable at all.
I see why people like it, and it's not about to go away, so maybe in that context this is helpful to have.
no subject
(I am not personally a proponent of public-but-not-searchable, but I do think there is a clear benefit for certain types of speech, particularly those which are legal grey areas in their posters' countries of origin, or could otherwise cause RL problems for people, to be unlocked but under the radar. It's risk management - you want the information to be shared as widely as possible among a community of like minds, but you also don't want it do be easily found by people who don't already know where to look for it. Which is why I have all search on, but I also have a notice on my profile warning people about it)
no subject
no subject
And I like the potential good stuff; I don't know what real problems could come out of it. ("Real" meaning "not related to social conflicts involving people banning/unaccessing etc. each other based on what settings they've chosen.")
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is especially valuable for communities, as
no subject
Public content can always be indexed/made searchable, etc. Setting the "Attempt to block..." option on one's journal only means that some services won't; it doesn't mean it can't be. If this is implemented, it will need to be very carefully phrased so as not to cause misunderstandings.
Also, what happens if I change the options? You commented thinking it was 'safe' except it no longer is because now my journal is indexable/searchable.