Non-Friends Group

Mar 16, 2010 22:11


Title
Non-Friends Group

Short, concise description of the idea
Currently custom friends groups allow us to lock posts to manually organized groups of friends, but how about an option for posting only to the general non-friended public?

Full description of the ideaThis isn't so much about privacy as it is just reducing f-list spammage. Sometimes a ( Read more... )

entry viewing, friends, security, § no status, logged-out users

Leave a comment

Comments 12

azurelunatic March 20 2010, 21:14:47 UTC
This entry revisits a 2004 suggestion: http://community.livejournal.com/suggestions/494550.html
Using the Date Out of Order feature will ensure that an entry doesn't appear on the friends list of people who have added you.

Reply

roximonoxide March 20 2010, 21:20:42 UTC
Ah that's good to know! Thanks!

but those DOO posts would still be visible if they visited my journal, no?

Reply

azurelunatic March 20 2010, 21:23:03 UTC
Yes, they would be.

Reply

roximonoxide April 4 2010, 19:50:24 UTC
Hrm, don't want that...

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

roximonoxide April 4 2010, 19:49:57 UTC
1. If you haven't friended them back then I don't suppose they'd be on the 'friends list' that excludes them from seeing these types of posts.

2. I haven't done any polling, but I'd get a lot of use out of it.

Reply


lady_angelina March 20 2010, 21:59:56 UTC
I can understand where this is coming from. Say you wanted to post something that contained spoilers or other content that certain folks on your Friends list just didn't want to see or accidentally run into, but you wanted to share it with other folks. There have been times when I ended up creating opt-in filters for spoilers so that people who didn't want to be spoiled didn't have to be... but I have also wanted to share those entries with those not on my Friends list, but couldn't because they had to remain protected for the sake of the filter. ^^;;

That said... I don't think this would be practical to implement. Likely too complex with too few benefits to make it worthwhile.

Reply

charliemc March 21 2010, 01:39:02 UTC
I agree with this -- and understand exactly what's being said here. (Nicely worded, as always, in other words!)

Likely too complex with too few benefits to make it worthwhile.

Agreed.

Reply


lady_astrocat March 20 2010, 22:22:20 UTC
I really like this idea. I would be nice for hiding that "Friends Only" post that a lot of people have, and I can think of plenty of times when I'd like to use it otherwise.

+1 from me!

Reply


mooism March 20 2010, 22:58:28 UTC
-1 --- will cause drama when people inevitably misunderstand the feature and use it to post information they think other people cannot read.

If you need to make posts that you don't want to bother your flist with on a regular basis, then you probably need a secondary account to post them to.

Reply

roximonoxide April 4 2010, 19:46:44 UTC
I hate that a secondary account is so often the only solution we're given. It's really what I'm trying to avoid here. I have enough accounts in enough places all across these internets. I certainly don't want multiple accounts anywhere.

Reply

mooism April 4 2010, 20:25:48 UTC
That's true. But it should be in a separate journal. Thinking about it, you're right that you shouldn't have to create a secondary user account.

Why not create a community, set it up so no-one else can post to it, and post your public posts to that?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up