Rather than lumping this in under the 'entry security features' (like f'lock, etc), could it be an option under 'viewing options' (or wherever settings are indicated for a user's journal) to: 'Only display my content to logged-in users'?
Now, this would mean the entire journal is 'shielded' to logged-in users only and there might need to be a tickybox on the 'post entry' page for 'display to the world at large', or something, but would possibly add that 'super-lj-cut' that Erica was talking about, but seems more clear that 'this is not a security feature since anyone can log-in and see this'. Other than that, the only option seems to be either filters or 2 separate journals. *tossing ideas into the ether* H2 On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Rachel Walmsley <[email protected]> wrote: > Denny wrote: > > Yes, the fact that this potential feature is being lumped in with the > > concept of 'security' levels is misleading and unhelpful. Nobody is > > wanting it to provide security, we all know it won't do that, that's not > > why we want it. Any reply which says "This won't provide any real > > security" is not actually addressing the reasons for this feature > > request. Honest :) > > The problem isn't what you (plural) would want the feature for, or how > you would use it. The problem is how the userbase at large would > perceive it, and I'm pretty much certain that a whole lot of people > would perceive it as a security feature, even though it doesn't offer > any security. Remember that the people on this list are likelier to be > more technically savvy and familiar with the site than the userbase at > large. What's obvious to you isn't going to be obvious to everyone. > > Giving the impression of security when there's none there is something > we really really don't want to do. We absolutely need for people to > trust our security 100% so we want to avoid anything that could shake > that confidence, even if it isn't our fault. If people see this feature > as offering security, use it as such, and then get burned, everyone loses. > > It's not that something like this doesn't have legitimate uses. It's > also not that we should avoid anything that could possibly be misused or > misconstrued (if we were doing that, we may as well go home now). It's > just that the legitimate use is sufficiently narrow, and the potential > for misunderstanding so large that any benefit is outweighed by the costs. > > -- > rho > _______________________________________________ > dw-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss > -- Highlander II Currently reading: "Furies of Calderon" by Jim Butcher http://www.h2smsk.com http://hdresdenwizard.h2smsk.com http://vanhelsing.h2smsk.com/ http://jamesmarsters.h2smsk.com
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
