I agree with this on all points. And thank you, Mark, for explaining some of the biggest blocks on community importing. Beet
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Emily Ravenwood <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think piecemeal importing is the answer. I know that I, for > one, would look at such a requirement and throw up my hands and never > even try it. > > At the same time, I would be pretty infuriated if I found that an > entry I had posted to a comm had been reposted somewhere I could not > assert any control over it. Control of one's own content is a pretty > bedrock feature of LJ and all it's offspring. So I also don't think > that the current stop on comm imports is in any way unreasonable. > > I would *like* to have comm imports. But only if control of one's > content can be maintained. > > And, given what I said first about the turn-off factor of any major > hassle being involved for the users, it seems to me the best way to > address the problem is indeed at the back end, by figuring out some > way for non-native (that is OpenID) users to assert control over > imported entries. (Lost track of who said this first, but +1.) > > Since the importer is going to mark entries according to where they > came from, perhaps that can be used as a lever? So that users with > only OpenID identities can be given permission to do entry-type- > things only with entries of that particular category. > > Cheers, > ER > > _______________________________________________ > dw-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss > -- beet @ livejournal.com
_______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
