Jaymez Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 I think a members and groups should be able to hide and this should be configurable via the ACP. I liked Permission Sets for this reason. Where'd they go? If a site has 20 groups they ALL show up in advanced search and it looks obnoxious and confusing. Also allowing members to have anonymity and not be stalked, time stamped and followed would be nice—especially on small sites (and all sites start small). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel R Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 8 hours ago, Jaymez said: I think a members and groups should be able to hide and this should be configurable via the ACP. I liked Permission Sets for this reason. Where'd they go? If a site has 20 groups they ALL show up in advanced search and it looks obnoxious and confusing. Also allowing members to have anonymity and not be stalked, time stamped and followed would be nice—especially on small sites (and all sites start small). I'm hoping @Lindy will comment on IPS' thoughts toward the broader context of this question regarding a deeper and more nuanced view towards permission sets. This question speaks to larger features and issues regarding user privacy, private content vs public content, social circles, and friends vs followers vs stalkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted January 15, 2017 Management Share Posted January 15, 2017 Joel is trapping me, I can feel it! We build communities. Most communities want members to engage members and have that sense of.... well, community. We're not in the business of stealth ninja troll mode features that essentially "I want to insert a post and otherwise have nothing to do with this site!" If the admin wishes to allow for that, they may want to consider guest posting... it's just not what most communities want. To address specific points though: Permission masks were confusing to many and unnecessary for most. Groups are something everyone understands. That said, I've seen the suggestion for hiding groups intended for secondary use (we have one here in fact) from public lists and think that's a good idea. I'll follow up on that. You can login anonymously which prevents you from showing to non-admins in online lists and your profile timestamp. To add a bit of a teaser to this post, we are planning social enhancements this year, including social groups. Clients have presented use cases for communities within communities so-to-speak -- from gaming clans to mental health support sites. We don't like doing things just because they're trendy, we want them to be functional -- so we have some really cool stuff planned for groups. Stay tuned in 4.2 and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymez Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 @Lindy Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to "Special Groups." I'd like to note that from B2B, to gaming clans to mental health, to every group of people some do not want to be tracked by strangers. And there are scenarios where admins want to hide groups from other groups. Various—legit—reasons come up for this (strategy, privacy, and stalkers to name a few). The most basic privacy need is a user's profile and online status. Watching when someone logs in and out becomes an insidious pass-time for obsessive or needy mods and members—the real trolls. Here are some examples that aren't trollish...I don't want someone to know I'm online if.. I temp-banned someone for being an butthole surfer in a game server. I want to ignore a PM I soft-hire a new copywriter I didn't want to reveal to the whole site/team/world Needed to log in at 3am and tweak my profile, draft a post, or participate in private forums—I don't want my mom, coworker, or whomever to see me up so late cause it's none of their business (maybe trollish to some, but whatever). And I'm an admin with control. Members have it worse. Some members/clients are just turned off entirely by the lack of anonymity on IPS sites. From a marketing perspective—busting ass to get new users to hop on from FB or IG becomes a conflict of privacy options—and if they happen to join your competitors can immediately market to them. 30% of Instagram is private and where as I realize you are not trying to be Instagram, and its not a direct comparison it does reflect the desire non-trollish people have Members-list/profile challenges aside, permission sets allowed us a ton of workarounds and offer a deep complex matrix to our leaders. It used to be just awesome to deploy and maintain from ACP level. Its not anymore. It's embarrassing by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel R Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 6 hours ago, Jaymez said: Here are some examples that aren't trollish...I don't want someone to know I'm online if.. I temp-banned someone for being an butthole surfer in a game server. I want to ignore a PM I soft-hire a new copywriter I didn't want to reveal to the whole site/team/world Needed to log in at 3am and tweak my profile, draft a post, or participate in private forums—I don't want my mom, coworker, or whomever to see me up so late cause it's none of their business (maybe trollish to some, but whatever). All of your use cases can be circumvented by logging in anonymously, which is a function that's already available when you log-in. On 1/15/2017 at 0:29 AM, Lindy said: To address specific points though: I encourage IPS to think more deeply about the controls and permissions to fine-tune existing App permissions, especially the ones that can contain more personal content. Specifically, Expand view permissions for Gallery albums, Blogs, and Status Updates to include groups of people such as membergroups, followers, people I follow, moderators, staff, etc. Right now you have to identify single users. Expand view and search permissions for Memberlist and Profiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymez Posted January 18, 2017 Author Share Posted January 18, 2017 On 1/16/2017 at 8:24 PM, Joel R said: All of your use cases can be circumvented by logging in anonymously, which is a function that's already available when you log-in. Yeah..on or off. So for example, Group A are members that can register and gain access to basic areas of website and Group B are familiar trusted members and its OK and helpful for them to see who's online and time-stamps etc. Although I can fine tune who sees what I cannot for the most basic of features—profiles and activity/online status. I find that frustrating. We have all these view permissions and features, but an on/off switch for activity and just an always on switch for profiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymez Posted March 18, 2017 Author Share Posted March 18, 2017 Wow. Thank You @Lindy With the latest update you guys knocked our biggest "deal breaker" off this list. We can now hide specific groups from search results! Thanks for making us not seem insane to our end-users. We greatly appreciate it. <3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.