On 2/3/09, zvi <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/3/09, Erica Frank wrote: > > > It'd be *great* to be able to have public posts googleable, and > > open-to-DW-users posts not googleable. Right now, since I don't want > > everything I don't limit to my specific f'list to be searchable, I > > have search engines turned off. > > Er, well, two things apply here. One, if the desired security goal is "make > this entry unindexable by spiders", then that's what the security should > *say*. I don't know if that's what Chasy is going for or not, since they > haven't yet chimed back in.
That is part of the idea, and a substantial one. Spiderable-by-entry would be very helpful. But without a secondary "locked to logged-in users only," it fails to provide what it's most helpful for--a way for some posts to be totally public, and others limited to people who've shown some affinity, however vague, for the poster or her social community. > Second, I believe (although I do not know for an absolute certainty) that > one can, in fact, create this level of security by flagging one's content > for adult concepts or adult content, on the theory that spiders don't agree > to view adult content and get a cookie. Setting to "adult content/mature concepts" makes it unsearchable, but not unreadable by someone who finds your journal through a search. Also, it comes with annoying connotations; the word "adult" as an adjective has come to mean "sexual," with an implication of "possibly illegal for minors." (Nobody uses "adult concepts" to mean "I post about 401Ks and car rentals.") This is an incredibly problematic label. Especially ridiculous when a 15-year-old is making the posts. (It's been pointed out that a teenager on LJ can write explicit entries, like "what I did with my boyfriend last week, and tag it as such, and then their underage friends can't read it, but perv-of-the-week can.) Being able to lock entries to logged-in users is another low-level identity protection. It'd possibly work as the default setting for minors, who (I believe) currently have the problem that their entries start as friendslocked... so, new kids joining LJ get caught in a vortex of silence, because until they figure out how the lock/unlock game works, they're posting into a void unless they came there because of an active group of friends. > --zvi > > P.S. If a person feels that a natural language solution of five centuries' > standing is beneath their prescriptivist's dignity, they may investigate the > invented pronouns, such as zie. I invariably find that if I want to use such > a pronoun, I have to google it to find its declension, but I'm generally > able to recognize its use by others with little difficulty. 'They', of > course, I use with the naturalness of a native speaker. All English speakers > are used to the ambiguity of using the same pronoun/verb forms to indicate > singular or plural, as all English speakers use 'you.' (Well, I shouldn't > say all. I myself have been known to use both "y'all" and "you guys". But > the use of singular you is well-established in most standard written > Englishes.) And that is the last I shall say on the subject. > _______________________________________________ > dw-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss > -- "I follow Eris blindly in all things. That She is the Goddess of Chaos simplifies this immensely." -- Christian the Pagan _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
