Rialtus ([info]rialtus) wrote in [info]suggestions,
@ 2006-02-11 00:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:abuse, gift shop, profile/userinfo, virtual gifts, § rejected

TRUE opt-out of virtual gifts

Title
TRUE opt-out of virtual gifts

Short, concise description of the idea
The ability should be included to completely opt-out of recieving all virtual gifts, not just delete ones that have already been received.

Full description of the idea
There is potential for the virtual gifts concept to be abused by people who will actually *pay* to have inappropriate language placed in a userinfo page. The way the current setup for virtual gifts is implemented, the gift would show up on the userinfo page, and the owner would have to delete the gift to resolve the issue. This is not great. There needs to be a way to opt-out of receiving these "virtual gifts" entirely.

An ordered list of benefits
  • Increased security through the reduction in abuse potential

An ordered list of problems/issues involved
  • Reduce potential money LiveJournal would receive from virtual gifts

An organized list, or a few short paragraphs detailing suggestions for implementation
  • Ideally, I'd like to see a section in the editinfo page to opt-out of both virtual gifts and nudge.
  • Barring that, a console command like the nudge disable could be implemented.


Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]damnitnicole
2006-02-11 04:16 am UTC (link)
I agree with this suggestion, but more on the principle that if you don't want gifts, nobody should be able to waste the money on you when you're just going to remove it anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]futureperfect
2006-02-11 07:34 am UTC (link)
i agree. i wouldn't want anyone to waste money on me with something like this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]geeksicle, 2006-02-12 05:22 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-13 11:04 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]geeksicle, 2006-02-13 11:17 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-13 11:18 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]michygeary
2006-02-11 04:23 am UTC (link)
I'm a little confused about what you mean by the inappropriate language.

~*Michy*~

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]7rin
2006-02-11 04:49 am UTC (link)
How about like: You're a fat fucking bitch who sucks her daddy's cock! ??

Much as I've whinged about the whingers in the thread, I'm thumb-upping this one, or at the very least I agree it should be limitable to f/only, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]michygeary, 2006-02-11 05:01 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]anotherdream, 2006-02-11 06:48 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]michygeary, 2006-02-11 06:09 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]anotherdream, 2006-02-11 06:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]matgb, 2006-02-11 10:39 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sewcute, 2006-02-16 03:38 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]phoenixdreaming, 2006-02-13 12:53 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-11 02:55 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rialtus, 2006-02-11 05:02 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-11 02:57 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]supergee, 2006-02-11 01:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-11 02:58 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rialtus, 2006-02-11 04:59 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]adudeabides, 2006-02-11 02:39 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]rialtus, 2006-02-12 05:03 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]adudeabides, 2006-02-13 02:37 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]matgb, 2006-02-11 10:41 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sannask, 2006-02-17 07:39 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]selphish
2006-02-11 05:02 am UTC (link)
I agree. I'd also like to see "security settings" for the gifts--so that if I decide I want to accept gifts, I can accept them from friends only.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]bitter_crimson
2006-02-11 05:04 am UTC (link)
Ditto this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-11 05:08 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]tinkernoonoo, 2006-02-14 03:58 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ari_, 2006-02-11 06:54 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pickledginger, 2006-02-12 03:48 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]fwuffydragon, 2006-02-14 01:24 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]imfallingup
2006-02-11 05:33 am UTC (link)
agreed. it's a cute idea but way too open for abuse.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]burr86
2006-02-11 05:57 am UTC (link)
There's the potential for abuse, sure, but ... there's the potential for abuse with anything. I don't really think that a pay-for-use feature will be abused as much as people think it's going to be abused. Maybe one or two people will get psychos buying them gifts, but ... most people who'd like to antagonize others don't care enough to pay for that privilege.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]imfallingup, 2006-02-11 06:39 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]coffeechica, 2006-02-11 02:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]imfallingup, 2006-02-11 07:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]moira_mae, 2006-02-11 03:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-11 07:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]moira_mae, 2006-02-12 03:10 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]jameth, 2006-02-12 03:52 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]vvalkyri
2006-02-11 05:55 am UTC (link)
Hm. Is the problem that the text/gift shows on the userinfo page without the recipient's assent /knowlege? What about it not displaying until an email replied / checkbox checked?

That would seem more in keeping with the general "user controls what shows on hir profile"*, and wouldn't leave people doing an all or nothing out of fear of trolls.

*yes, one can't hide one's communites or friends, but one still chooses the association

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]vvalkyri, 2006-02-11 12:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vvalkyri, 2006-02-11 12:47 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]daveman692
2006-02-11 06:12 am UTC (link)
Can you point me to an actual example of where Virtual Gifts have been abused? Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]dougs
2006-02-11 09:56 am UTC (link)
As an aside ...

http://brad.livejournal.com/profile
As you can see, Brad has deleted gift number two.

http://www.livejournal.com/gift-details.bml?uid=2&g=2
The gift is still visible.

So the ability to delete a reference to an abusive gift doesn't delete the gift itself.

I'd interpret that as a bug.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]jameth, 2006-02-12 03:53 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-11 03:11 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]daveman692, 2006-02-11 07:26 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]dougs, 2006-02-12 09:43 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]faithhopetricks
2006-02-11 07:43 am UTC (link)
I agree -- this is way too open for stalking. It should be opt-in and people should be able to check security settings -- accept gifts from all, from friends only, and so on. The gift also shouldn't show up on the userinfo unless the person receiving it has accepted it. Apart from the abusive language problem, just allowing a stalker to have the ability to send messages to someone without that person being able to turn off the option is v worrisome.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]johncoxon
2006-02-13 09:34 am UTC (link)
I do think that one should have to actively say "yes, I want this" as opposed to that being assumed until one says "no, I don't". It's the wrong way around, otherwise.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]hungerbound
2006-02-11 07:43 am UTC (link)
I think it's a good idea, just because I think post-opt-out is stupid.

But really - if someone leaves stupid shit in your userinfo, don't you WANT to waste their money?

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]ari_
2006-02-11 07:56 am UTC (link)
I'd actually be for "charge them anyway, even if the recipient has it turned off", but I doubt LJ would go for that. *g*

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]hungerbound, 2006-02-11 07:59 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]redbird, 2006-02-12 12:59 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hungerbound, 2006-02-12 01:08 am UTC (Expand)

[info]whotheheckami
2006-02-11 07:45 am UTC (link)
I am giving my support to this suggestion.

The risk for abuse is real and the impact both on the recipient of a nuisance gift and to the reputation of Live Journal are significant.

I would support both a pre-emptive opt-out option and for gifts to be delivered screened with a message to the recipient to unscreen or delete them. For example, if the postman delivers me multiple valentine's cards I can chose whether to proudly display them or throw them in the rubbish bin.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Agreed 100%
[info]clauclauclaudia
2006-02-12 01:16 am UTC (link)
I think this is in fact The Right Way to implement this. Opt-out and screened should both at a minimum be options, but I think screened should probably have been the default to begin with.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]pickledginger, 2006-02-12 03:55 am UTC (Expand)

[info]legomymalfoy
2006-02-11 08:14 am UTC (link)
I won't really comment on disabling the virtual gifts (as I have no comment) but you can disable nudge by entering "set disable_nudge 1" into the admin console.

(Reply to this)


[info]wechsler
2006-02-11 08:17 am UTC (link)
I do not want to other allow people to edit my userinfo page in any way.

(Reply to this)


[info]abigail_42
2006-02-11 08:22 am UTC (link)
I agree with the others - it's MY info page - I don't want anybody adding to it. Thank you.

(Reply to this)

I got $20 that says, "You're crazy!"
[info]justgoto
2006-02-11 09:19 am UTC (link)
Well, when I go buy my Vgift it will!

(Reply to this)


[info]talodi
2006-02-11 09:33 am UTC (link)
the gift system has such a huge number of holes in it regarding abuse. Please think carefully before implementing this, and at least consider these suggestions.

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]faerierhona
2006-02-11 10:56 am UTC (link)
sounds perfect - very similar to the permissions given for comments/ anon comments etc

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]andrewducker, 2006-02-11 11:28 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-11 03:03 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]marycrawford, 2006-02-11 12:03 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]frandowdsofa, 2006-02-11 12:39 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]artela
2006-02-11 10:53 am UTC (link)
I think that for *anything* where another user has the option to influence your LJ an "opt out" in some form should always be made available and publicised AT THE SAME TIME as the new feature is released. So I'd like to see this suggestion expanded to include future feature realeases.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pickledginger
2006-02-12 03:56 am UTC (link)
Yes, please.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]triadruid, 2006-02-13 02:47 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]hafren
2006-02-11 11:37 am UTC (link)
This is a bad, bad idea and the comment "can you point me to an example" is just silly. As others have said, you don't wait until something like this happens, you fix it first. And I don't need to be paranoid to feel "it's MY bleedin' userinfo and nobody messes with it". What of some well-meaning soul includes a religious message, which to me as an atheist would be offensive?

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]defaultcrush
2006-02-11 04:31 pm UTC (link)
No offense, but I'd hope that if you knew they were "well-meaning" you wouldn't get too upset about it, especially if it's someone that may enjoy your posts but might not know you very well.

I agree that there are very real problems with this feature, but "well-meaning people posting something I might not agree with" is low on the list for me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]hafren, 2006-02-11 06:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]defaultcrush, 2006-02-12 01:36 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pickledginger, 2006-02-12 03:57 am UTC (Expand)

[info]neepheid
2006-02-11 12:51 pm UTC (link)
I don't want any gifts. I don't want anyone to be able to waste their money on giving me gifts. I don't want to be forced to clean up stuff that I don't welcome in the first place.

Stands to reason that if you're implementing fluff of this nature that you should give people the right to disassociate with it if it pleases them to do so.

(Reply to this)


[info]moira_mae
2006-02-11 03:33 pm UTC (link)
I agree with much of what is said above. It just seems common sense to me that at the VERY least, if someone is banned from posting in your journal, that ban should also automatically apply to them being able to give you 'gifts'.

But beyond that, there really needs to be some kind of approval or opt-out feature.

(Reply to this)


[info]ladylynx
2006-02-11 04:03 pm UTC (link)
It's a sad day when people complain about receiving gifts.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]mithgol
2006-02-11 06:48 pm UTC (link)
An option to bastardize my userinfo — and available for anyone willing to pay $1 — is not a gift.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]rialtus, 2006-02-12 04:48 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ladylynx, 2006-02-12 02:52 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]chutes, 2006-02-14 03:36 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ladylynx, 2006-02-14 03:52 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]tinkernoonoo, 2006-02-14 04:30 am UTC (Expand)

[info]curly
2006-02-11 06:20 pm UTC (link)
i agree with most of what was said above as well. i made most of my journal friend-only for a reason. (it's not all friends only because there isn't an automatic way to make all past entries friends only; that would be very nice too.)

i've received harrassing comments and had to ban users, so i have no problem believing that some people would use the gift system to harass or just be ugly to someone.

at the least, all gifts should have to be screened before they appear on someone's info page.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]celeloriel
2006-02-12 02:01 am UTC (link)
Re: making all past entries friends-only - have you investigated using [info]hidejournal? Several of my friends have employed the program.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - [info]pickledginger, 2006-02-12 04:21 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]curly, 2006-02-12 05:41 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]curly, 2006-02-12 06:25 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]fwuffydragon, 2006-02-14 01:33 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]veroz
2006-02-11 09:26 pm UTC (link)
As much as I agree that you should have the option to opt out of receiving virtual gifts, part of me doesn't like the mentality that every time a new feature is introduced people want to be able to turn it on and off.

No other site besides LJ provides this level of support to users which is both a strength and weakness I suppose. Creating a service like this is one thing, but making everything customizable from layouts to even the features on the site is another.

There has to be some line drawn. At least from a design perspective, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to develop a better user interface when each user has different needs. We can't make the site easier to use if everyone wants security levels and the option to opt in/out on everything.

I think there are better measures we can take. You don't disable all comments because you're afraid of comment abuse, do you? vGifts are supposed to be fun. In any system there is the possibility of abuse and we try our best to limit these cases. But at the same time, we can't sit down and perfect each and every detail whenever a feature goes live, especially when it's something as silly as virtual gifts.

You want bug fixes? Alright, we're working on 'em. You want better security? Ok, done. You want new features? Sure, why not? Keep in mind though that we are people just like you, not some corporate super power. It takes time and a lot of hard work to juggle the needs of the community.

This suggestion won't go unheard though. I think the console command would probably be the best solution. I think the majority of users don't care/mind having the vgifts option and having the console command would satisfy the needs of those with privacy/whatever concerns. This, of course, is just my opinion. The final decision is up to discussion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-02-12 01:38 am UTC (Expand)

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]ex_shattered767, 2006-02-12 08:36 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]jameth, 2006-02-12 03:57 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]jameth, 2006-02-12 03:57 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ladylynx, 2006-02-11 10:24 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-12 06:53 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]7rin, 2006-02-13 12:12 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-13 12:28 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ladylynx, 2006-02-13 03:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-13 08:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ladylynx, 2006-02-14 03:50 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]selphish, 2006-02-14 06:13 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]hawkida, 2006-02-11 11:17 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pickledginger, 2006-02-12 04:02 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vvalkyri, 2006-02-13 05:52 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pickledginger, 2006-02-16 04:50 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kunzite1, 2006-02-11 11:22 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]clauclauclaudia, 2006-02-12 01:24 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pinkpolarity, 2006-02-13 04:04 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kayshapero, 2006-02-12 02:35 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kunzite1, 2006-02-12 03:07 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]filkerdave, 2006-02-13 01:47 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]destinymanifest, 2006-02-12 11:26 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-02-13 05:07 pm UTC (Expand)
It should be opt-in, not opt out
[info]matgb
2006-02-11 11:11 pm UTC (link)
I take it further, agree with your suggestion but don't think it goes far enough.

Given the possibility of abuse (and I've friends who've been stalked) and that many others would view this as a complete waste of money, those that do like it can opt in to the feature.

Essentially, it's part of Danga's business model with a little extra bonus. We'd be donating money to support LJ, with a little extra feature.

But for those that have been stalked, or for those that simply want their UI to remain their UI, and especially for those of us who have a longstanding deal with friends/family that charities are where gift money goes, this is just not something to welcome.

A stalkee would need to read the messages and delete the abusive gifts, another reminder in another way of something they don't want. LJ is somewhere people come to get away from some things, this just isn't good.

As it happens, one friend likes the feature, and wants a gift from me. Fine, she'll get it. But I don't want it at all. And others will be more than disliking it.

LJ, please, it's a nice little gimmick to support the business model, one I actually think could be cool. But it's not one I, personally, welcome. Make it a feature to opt in to, and everyone is happy.

Well, less upset, anyway.

(Reply to this)


[info]gerald_duck
2006-02-12 12:24 am UTC (link)
I made a very similar suggestion and had it rejected for being a duplicate of this.

So I fully support this suggestion, and feel it should be implemented as a matter of urgency.

As a general principle, whenever features such as "nudge" or "virtual gifts" are implemented that allow another user (or even non-user, in the case of virtual gifts?) to affect one's use of LJ, the ability for users to disable this ought to be provided at the same time as the feature. That many people would want to disable this surely could and should have been anticipated.

One further issue: does buying gifts for communities work? If so, shouldn't that be disabled by default?

(Reply to this)


[info]stevegreen
2006-02-12 12:33 am UTC (link)
Are you notified of these gifts? If it's a case of checking your LJ Info, how often do any of us do that? The rogue "gift" could be there for weeks, maybe months, before it was spotted and deleted.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]mookiegatto
2006-02-12 12:55 am UTC (link)
Yes. Notification is sent to the e-mail account registered to the recipient user name.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]rialtus, 2006-02-12 04:58 am UTC (Expand)

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…