Mary Ann made an announcement in a comment on Sandy Knauer's latest article saying that "Very shortly we will be adding features that will allow each member the ability to customize which of their connections can see their content." I'm wondering what others think of this idea. It isn't often that we have the opportunity to express our views on a feature until after implementation. I think it's nice that this time we have the information ahead of time, and I hope you'll take advantage of allowing your opinion to be known.
I can see two different viewpoints, although I tend to heavily lean toward favoring the second one. Some people have so many connections that I suppose there are some issues that may be of a more personal nature that they would only wish to share with fewer and closer connections. I think the feature used in such a way, however, would be for those who tend to use Gather as a more social site and feel no compunction about sharing details of their private lives. There is a downside, even to this use. If you do have so many connections and wish for only some of them to see a publication, then it might create hurt feelings of connections precluded. This is one reason I think it might not be a wise feature to implement.
The other viewpoint is that if you have so many connections that would deter you from sharing information with all of them, what's the sense in having them as connections in the first place? Might it just be a better idea to whittle down the number of connections you have?
Since I don't usually publish anything that isn't for all to see, and I don't publish information of a very personal nature, I'll probably just ignore the feature. I don't see it as being productive or as being an incentive for members to publish worthwhile and stimulating content about which all can have a voice.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 75
Excuse my grammar but If it aint broke don't fix it.
I agree, Jean. It won't be something I'll choose to use.
It's another superflous and silly idea, but they seem to want to continue in that pursuit.
Hope the move goes well for you and you adjust to it nicely.
No, Penni, presently you can choose to allow only your connections to see, but not the subsets of those connections you want to include and those which you do not.
I actually do see some value in this capability. However, that is dependent on how it is implemented and what options we have available to us. For example, can we also restrict specific members from viewing our content? If so, then I would label that aspect of the change as unwise. Further, does 'content' also pertain to our comments?
I struggle to see where this is really needed in the community though (ahead of OTHER things that really are). Therefore, this must be part of a larger business objective, or used to cater to the current or future needs of a specific segment of the community (advertisers/business partners, etc.).
In a way, if this works they way it has been characterized, it will allow us to create ad-hoc groups out of a subset of our connections for the purposes of sharing a specific piece of content. Again, I see value in it, but I see MORE value in making existing processes work better.
If you have 20 friends, but choose to only invite 10 of them to your party, you are going to, inevitably, restrict the other 10. No matter how you implement that, you can't change that fact, unless there's some magic I'm missing here, or I'm not understanding what you've said.
Furthermore, in the context of the article in which that was stated, as some sort of convoluted solution to that problem, I find it even more utterly ludicrous because it would seem to exacerbate any such problem rather than being even the most feeble attempt at solving it. (*shakes her head and rolls her eyes*)
I would imagine that it really does have nothing to do with it at all, but, as you intimate, is really part of a larger business objective.
I do not believe that MaryAnne's revelation about the new capability had any direct relationship with the article or comment thread in which she made that statement.
To clarify my concern above, I wouldn't want to see the ability for members to 'block' other members from seeing their content. Specifically, members that are not connected to them. For example, I want to publish an article to the entire community about memberA, but block memberA from seeing it.
I would much rather be able to organize and use groups, etc., etc., etc. than things like this myself.... Oh well, whatever.
The context of Mary Ann's entire comment, and her sole reason for appearing on that article at all, was to address the hacking issue. Certainly, it appears that we agree that she didn't.
She did, however, imply that this new feature was some kind of, albeit obscure, solution to the hacking issue. Here is the quote from that comment in which she brought up the new feature.
"There were concerns raised about seeing messages such as "an attempt to infiltrate your computer has just been blocked". Messages such as these are generic warnings generated by anti-virus software. Pop-up ads often trigger warning messages from anti-virus software. We recently had a survey pop-up ad on the site, but have stopped running that ad.
Connections, subscriptions and notifications all allow members to see what's publicly going on with each other on the site. Very shortly we will be adding features that will allow each member the ability to customize which of their connections can see their content. Watch for details on these features over the upcoming weeks."
So what? We've always had connections and subscriptions, and more recently, notifications. Obviously, they haven't revealed who is hacking the system, nor do they provide the kind of transparency to reveal such. This also did not address anything to do with anything mentioned in that article, but once again, there was no other purpose for her to have commented on that article.
In the very next sentence she states that soon members will be able to, "customize which of their connections can see their content," as if that's supposed to be some sort of enhancement to the subscriptions, connections, and notifications features we have now that will serve to make the site even more transparent! Huh?
Now your last paragraph above also seems to be in agreement with what I said earlier, although according to what you've written, you still seem to think that there's some way to allow some connections to see what you've posted without blocking other connections. That just doesn't make sense.
We do have the feature now, to allow only connections to see what one has posted. This does block the rest of the community. Now if you want to futher narrow that group to having only certain connections see what you've posted, you are going to have to "block the rest, whether the inclusion of some will automatically hide the ability of others to see, or whether you're blocking the ones you don't want to have see the posting, the end result will be the same. If you're saying something else, I still don't get it. Sorry!
This is an option we already have. You can currently publish your content to only your connections.
The rest of your coment seems to refer to excluding some connections, which is not an option we currently have, but is the option being suggested we are going to have. I have stated that I don't think that's a good idea because there's more chance of creating ill feelings, something this site needs far less than any new upgrade.
I think a much better solution would be to enhance the group features allowing like subject matter to be more systematically clustered.
:)
Little did I know, a whole new world was about to unfold! More (well, maybe) addictive than chocolate and Everquest.
The how/what/why
Stay tuned for the where/how.
I somehow don't think this is going to be one of those times like when I discovered that I really do love brussel sprouts, J Corn, but I appreciate your input. Thanks for your comment.
Hang onto the hope, Rebecca. Just make sure you've got it anchored to something besides Gather's tech team.
Nalita, I'd answer you but I'm busy chasing my computer around the room..........
I AM talking about BRUCE K
In this aspect I think it could be a valuable asset and possibly end some of the online disputes over what this site is for. However, as previously stated in this thread there are many reason why it could be equally a bad thing. I think it all depends on how the system is utilized.
I don't know if they'll ever get this far, but I think that Groups should have a site Monitor or a few Site Monitors. I think they would be every bit, if not more, as valuable as guides. For instance, if a game category were featured as a group, it would be the site monitor's job to see that nothing but games went into that group.
I think that the categories might also need further delineation. For example, I think I've posted 2 or 3 games in my Gather stint. The games I've posted have alway had rules, instructions and had a winner declared. Now there might be members interested in that kind of game that would not normally be interested in the kinds of games that are usually posted here. My game would be obscured by all the others in that category and may not even be noticed, since the people looking at the game category are seeking a different kind of game that they are more used to and the people who are not interested in the usual Gather game fare won't look there at all.
That's when the Group Site Monitor would also come into play. They would be responsible for creating a sub-group where the kind of game I published would be noticed by people interested. It might be called Games With Rules.
This might also be done with Poetry. There are so many types of poetry and so much of it is published here. If you're really interested in haiku, wouldn't it be nice to hit a button and get all the haikiu that has been published recently?
I think you see what I'm saying too. The connection subset feature is just not an effective implementation for the use you mention, certainly not as effective as an improved Group publishing feature.
Thanks too for commenting on my article with the quote from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I appreciate it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all had a positive thought at the same time each day about peace?
So while I have your attention, I've got a big black blurb in the middle of my digital camera lens, the one I bought last summer that you advised me on. this happened a couple of months ago and I haven't done anything about it. Do you know what the cause might be? I have it in a case and haven't damaged it in any way, as far as I know.
That is why I am here. If I wanted to be a part of a "myspace" type of atmosphere, I would go get an account there and play highschool.
This site was suposed to be for serious writers.
Even I partake in some silliness sometimes, but for the most part my work here is heartfelt and serious.
There IS something I wish Gather would install.
A mute button for public leg humpers.
Especially female public leg humpers.
It's getting to be you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one of those girls (or a few men) who make comments on our pages that imply intimate relationships---when really, they are usually just wishing or dreaming in poor taste.
Thanks for letting me vent!
I can't say I've run into it too much, but I also insulate myself here, for the most part. That, apparently, has its downside because I might have also noticed your writing earlier if that weren't the case.
Anytime!
I must say....
Didn't That suck the monkeys butt!!
And I Absolutely Hate, that they show related articles below our work.
When they show me Yours, well that's good. Saves me a step if I am going to read you on.