It's nice to see this "report" being posted pretty quickly after the fact.
But these aren't minutes! There's nothing discussed in terms of substance. Old business vs. new business. What got tabled? What got voted on? What were the specific recommendations?
If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!
If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!
*hollow laughter* This is LJ we're talking about. The organisation that after several years still won't let you do an Interests search for "doo-wop music" and still won't explain why the filtering is so laughably crude, but just that they "can't" explain the reasons. (It was marta who initially told me that, so I'm sure it's the truth. Doesn't stop it being insane to the nth degree.)
I still suspect this is the result of an out-of-court settlement with a secrecy clause, assuming it's real and not just something even more petty (which would not surprise me, alas). That one cannot search for "doo-wop" shows an amazingly poor filter implementation.
It's sad when one has to resort to Google's blogsearch to search within one's own journal, even if that limits the search to public entries that have been made indexable. Given that, I'd like a way to make previous entries indexable. Flipping that switch only make new entries indexable. And of course locked entries mean a purely manual search, since the right tool is missing from the LJ toolbox.
I still suspect this is the result of an out-of-court settlement with a secrecy clause
*Shrugs* Quite probably; I don't let this bother me any more for the most part, but like to mention it very occasionally to let off steam and make it clear that it still irritates me slightly. Why on earth they wouldn't be allowed to say something like "We can't explain further for legal reasons, I'm afraid" though is beyond me: the strong impression given has been that even adding something as vague as "for legal reasons" is too much to ask...
As for a proper journal search? We've been promised that since about 1485, so again it's something I've just learnt to live with except when I'm feeling particularly irritated - like now!
But these aren't minutes! There's nothing discussed in terms of substance. Old business vs. new business. What got tabled? What got voted on? What were the specific recommendations?
If these are all things that can't be shared due to NDA stuff, then say so!
Reply
Reply
*hollow laughter* This is LJ we're talking about. The organisation that after several years still won't let you do an Interests search for "doo-wop music" and still won't explain why the filtering is so laughably crude, but just that they "can't" explain the reasons. (It was marta who initially told me that, so I'm sure it's the truth. Doesn't stop it being insane to the nth degree.)
Reply
It's sad when one has to resort to Google's blogsearch to search within one's own journal, even if that limits the search to public entries that have been made indexable. Given that, I'd like a way to make previous entries indexable. Flipping that switch only make new entries indexable. And of course locked entries mean a purely manual search, since the right tool is missing from the LJ toolbox.
Reply
*Shrugs* Quite probably; I don't let this bother me any more for the most part, but like to mention it very occasionally to let off steam and make it clear that it still irritates me slightly. Why on earth they wouldn't be allowed to say something like "We can't explain further for legal reasons, I'm afraid" though is beyond me: the strong impression given has been that even adding something as vague as "for legal reasons" is too much to ask...
As for a proper journal search? We've been promised that since about 1485, so again it's something I've just learnt to live with except when I'm feeling particularly irritated - like now!
Reply
Leave a comment