if it's all or nothing, which do you choose?

[grumpyolddog]

If there's one thing about LJ (and Dreamwidth) that bug, is lack of configurable options. Seriously.

Okay, cool, FOAF networking even limited to one site is worth something but you end up with a lot of rubbish. For example (and consider this a test of embedded LJ usernames since I'm posting from DW), I like to read korenwolf's stuff about being politically

Comments

[korenwolf]

but his antics in WoW pressing one button a lot do not interest me. Sorry, man.

Which is why the bulk of that has been moved off into a separate filter and the bigger dumps onto a completely separate blog :)

[grumpyolddog]

yup, that's pretty much the only option you have with LJ and in fact, most aggregation services.

I just think it'd be better for all concerned not to deal with multiple platforms for journal-style entries and to allow readers to filter rather than placing the onus for that on the content-provider (which is, in this example, you).

[silly_swordsman]

But as a reader you'd need to have something to filter on, either relying on the writer to tag appropriately, or apply more or less fuzzy logic to subject line or content.

That's not to say it's not a good idea, but you've got to have both. Just like DW were clever and separated the Follow from the Show lists, you should have allow filters on what you posts (essentially FOAF collections) as well as what you read.

[grumpyolddog]

Those are already a part of the specification and implemented by "closed group" functionality.

[egadfly]

As a user, this would be on my wish list. Some of it you've covered above or in the first post

[silly_swordsman]

Lots of nice ideas, but this:

I have the option to make some tags invite-only, or with-permission-only

is really pushing the notion of "tag" too far.

tag = classify content for client
filter = limit client access

You can have a filter "People I tell everything" and put your most intimate thoughts about sex, labour and blood wurst there. That's you limiting who's got access.

You can still tag an unfiltered post "sex", if you think it can be left open to all.

Access and tagging are orthogonal activities.

[grumpyolddog]

Agreed, you make filter content via locked groups; the consumers of that content get to filter by tag, not you.

[beckyl]

What's your system going to do about apathetic, ignorant lumps like me who don't tag posts because they too lazy/busy/confused by the technicalities to do so? I can mostly manage LJ filters. Ish. Tags confuse the hell out of me, although I can see the benefits without difficulty...

[grumpyolddog]

Default tags, usually defaulting to something bland and uninteresting so that a combination of peer pressure and egotism force you to raise your game.

Also, people get a blanket "read all" option by default and can opt-out of tags rather than in. They can clear all and then opt-in to those they're interested in. If you have no tags and continually post dross, expect to be dropped from many aggregations.

Makes sense to me!