A Cat-Preserving Operation ([info]catamorphism) wrote in [info]suggestions,
@ 2006-02-16 08:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:friends, profile/userinfo, § rejected

Eliminate "Hide 'Friend of' list" option

Title
Eliminate "Hide 'Friend of' list" option

Short, concise description of the idea
Remove the "Hide 'Friend of' list" option from editinfo.bml

Full description of the idea
This option exists because you may not wish for users whose usernames you dislike, or who you don't wish to be associated with, to appear on your "Friend of:" or "Also friend of:" list. However, the option dates back from a time before it was possible to suppress users from appearing on your "Friend of:" list by banning them. Thus, the option is no longer strictly necessary and creates confusion among users about what information on LiveJournal is truly public -- i.e., users may write outside scripts that expose this information, causing others to become upset because they falsely believed that the information was private.

An ordered list of benefits
  • Simplifies editinfo.bml
  • Security by obscurity doesn't work
  • It's good usability design to have as few options in "preferences" sections as possible
  • Lessens confusion about what information is public and what information is private (when people find out that information they thought was private, isn't, it decreases their level of trust in LiveJournal)
  • Encourages users to display information about themselves (this is a social site, and displaying social information is a good thing)

An ordered list of problems/issues involved
  • Users may be upset that they have to ban other users to prevent them from appearing on their userinfo pages
  • Users who think that the "Hide 'Friend of'" option is a privacy option (rather than a display option, which is what it is) may be upset that they no longer have this option

An organized list, or a few short paragraphs detailing suggestions for implementation
  • Just remove the code for this from editinfo.bml. Making it easier to ban users might also be desirable (i.e., clicking on a link from their userinfo), but is not strictly necessary.


(Post a new comment)


[info]katykate
2006-02-16 08:31 am UTC (link)
ah I did not know that banning a user actually removed them from your friends of list. There are several people I want OFF my list but I didn't know I could do that! Thank you!!! :D

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]asciident
2006-02-16 08:33 am UTC (link)
No, it doesn't. It removes them from the visual list of users on your userinfo, which is what "Hide Friends Of" was intended to deal with (so you wouldn't have unwanted usernames on your userinfo page). It does not actually remove you from their friends list.

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

(no subject) - [info]katykate, 2006-02-16 09:00 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]midnightmadness, 2006-02-16 02:52 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]harmonatrix, 2006-08-30 07:07 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]asciident, 2006-08-30 07:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]harmonatrix, 2006-08-30 07:17 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-08-30 07:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]harmonatrix, 2006-08-30 07:16 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]velvetchamber
2006-02-16 08:54 am UTC (link)
I think that this option is rather comfortable, as it also allows you some privacy about whom you do not friend back, as in some circles that can cause drama. I also think that removing this option would cause a lot of unnecessary drama, and it being there does not cause that much confusion.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]ayoub
2006-02-16 09:18 am UTC (link)
Agreed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 10:13 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sofiaviolet, 2006-02-16 11:53 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]joxn, 2006-02-16 05:23 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 06:12 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]noweb4u
2006-02-16 09:19 am UTC (link)
No. I like that people can add me, and nobody knows (easily) that they list me as a friend. This is, in my opinion, a crucial feature.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]caladri
2006-02-16 10:12 am UTC (link)
Looking at fdata.bml is hard. Using directory search for who lists "noweb4u" is hard. Yeah. You bet. Doncha know.

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

(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 12:06 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 12:10 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:09 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 08:14 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:16 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 08:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 08:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 08:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 08:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 08:47 pm UTC (Expand)
Here's a different way. - [info]anemone, 2006-02-16 08:55 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 09:14 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 10:07 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 10:28 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]anemone, 2006-02-16 10:07 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 10:29 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]anemone, 2006-02-16 10:47 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 12:41 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]anemone, 2006-02-17 01:03 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:11 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 01:15 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:26 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 01:27 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:31 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 01:32 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:37 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 01:39 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-17 01:34 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]anemone, 2006-02-17 01:25 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:29 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-17 01:30 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:34 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-17 01:37 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-17 01:46 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 01:57 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Here's a different way. - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 01:41 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 08:52 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:53 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-16 09:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]badlydrawnjeff, 2006-02-19 02:47 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 07:30 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]badlydrawnjeff, 2006-02-19 07:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 07:54 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]badlydrawnjeff, 2006-02-19 07:57 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 08:31 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]badlydrawnjeff, 2006-02-19 08:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 09:00 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-19 09:04 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 09:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-19 09:11 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 09:17 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-19 09:20 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 09:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-19 09:30 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-19 10:41 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-20 04:01 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-20 08:11 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]badlydrawnjeff, 2006-02-19 09:18 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]noweb4u, 2006-02-19 09:26 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]desh, 2006-02-16 02:34 pm UTC (Expand)
keep it dont delete it. - [info]dailybecoming, 2006-02-16 04:33 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:09 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]velvetchamber, 2006-02-16 11:35 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 11:36 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]velvetchamber, 2006-02-16 11:45 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]7rin
2006-02-16 09:52 am UTC (link)
Nope. I'm not bothered about the names bing on the "friend of list" but I have it turned off because (a) it looks neater, and (b) I feel weird having more people having friended me than I've friended back.

The ban option's only useful if you're willing to ban someone to keep your f/page looking neat, I'm not willing to ban people just to make my f/page look neat.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]herbgurl82
2006-02-16 02:55 pm UTC (link)
Seconded. I agree with you on the neatness factor.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]asciident
2006-02-16 09:56 am UTC (link)
I like this option even if I use it for an unintended reason. I don't like the list being shown to anyone, not because I care who friends me but because I don't like the clutter. In fact, what I personally want is for it to go back to its original functionality and hide the list from me too!

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]caladri
2006-02-16 10:14 am UTC (link)
Being able to customize the appearence of your userinfo (like with displaying Mutual Friends) is one thing. Making people feel like they're hiding information is another. People get greedy and jealous and insecure of such features.

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

(no subject) - [info]asciident, 2006-02-16 07:53 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kunzite1, 2006-02-16 08:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]asciident, 2006-02-16 08:31 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]kunzite1, 2006-02-16 08:33 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]christine
2006-02-16 10:33 am UTC (link)
No. People like this option, whether or not it does all that they intend for it to do.

(Reply to this)

Er, no. don't take it away.
[info]pauamma
2006-02-16 11:39 am UTC (link)
My "friend of" list isn't information about myself. It's information about others (namely, that they friended me) that appears on my profile/userinfo. I want the option of hiding it to stay. (Besides, banning people to hide them has the side effect of, well, banning them, which isn't necessarily desirable.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Er, no. don't take it away.
[info]dailybecoming
2006-02-16 04:34 pm UTC (link)
agreed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]sofiaviolet
2006-02-16 12:00 pm UTC (link)
I prefer to keep the information hidden because who lists me as a friend yet is not listed back isn't important information to me. If someone really wants to know, they are welcome to look up said information and I don't care if they do.
I do display part of the friend-of information by showing mutual friends. Mutual friends are people I consider friends or journals that are interesting to read. (I tend to use mutual friend lists of people on my flist as sources of new journals to friend if I want to add more people/meet new people/have more to read. I also do this with communities.)

(Reply to this)


[info]polyfrog
2006-02-16 12:04 pm UTC (link)
Wait...let me get this right:
You want LJ to take away a much-used feature and suggest people use a hard-to-use and little-used feature instead, for the sake of one ticky box on the edit info page? And your justification is that the feature isn't completely implemented (because third-party scripts can still get the information)?

Umm...no.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]catamorphism
2006-02-16 06:14 pm UTC (link)
The justification is that security by obscurity doesn't work, and that having confusing features like this reduce people's trust in LiveJournal, when people find out that information they thought was private isn't.

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

(no subject) - [info]pauamma, 2006-02-16 06:46 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]polyfrog, 2006-02-16 07:34 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 08:08 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:19 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 08:23 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:27 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 08:31 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:42 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2006-02-17 12:45 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 12:48 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2006-02-17 01:03 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-17 01:05 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2006-02-17 02:59 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-17 12:53 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2006-02-17 01:05 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2006-02-17 01:06 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-17 01:10 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]conuly, 2006-02-17 02:57 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:21 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vvvexation, 2006-02-16 08:38 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:46 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vvvexation, 2006-02-16 09:30 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sdf, 2006-02-17 07:44 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]vvvexation, 2006-02-17 06:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]velvetchamber, 2006-02-16 11:15 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]bookslibretti
2006-02-16 12:50 pm UTC (link)
Taking away features is not generally a good idea, and I don't think it's justified in this case.

(Reply to this)


[info]artela
2006-02-16 01:23 pm UTC (link)
Bad idea. Lot's of people use the feature and removing it would cause mayhem.

(Reply to this)


[info]penknife
2006-02-16 01:50 pm UTC (link)
No, people like this feature. Many people don't care whether it's possible to find out this information in other ways as long as it's not displayed in their user info. Banning has the possibly unwanted effect of preventing people from commenting, and would be a lot more trouble for people with large "Friend of" lists than simply hiding the entire list.

(Reply to this)


[info]ruakh
2006-02-16 02:13 pm UTC (link)
I don't like this suggestion, because it seems to encourage spurious banning: "Why hide your friend-of list, when you can just ban people!"

Instead, maybe the option should be renamed to "Show 'Friend of' list on User Profile"? (With the checkbox's sense would be flipped, obviously.) I think that unchecking "show" wouldn't convey the same sense of privacy that checking "hide" does.

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


[info]cos
2006-02-16 04:03 pm UTC (link)
Yes. That is actually a very good idea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]velvetchamber, 2006-02-16 05:50 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 06:15 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]pauamma, 2006-02-16 06:48 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]catamorphism, 2006-02-16 06:52 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]sophy, 2006-02-16 07:32 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]xcacophony, 2006-02-16 07:36 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-16 08:29 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]xcacophony, 2006-02-16 09:58 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ilcylic, 2006-02-17 09:42 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]ruakh, 2006-02-16 08:01 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]syrinx42
2006-02-16 02:45 pm UTC (link)
If people are thinking that they're actually making friend information private, then they are mistaken and LJ should do better to inform them of what's actually going on. (The suggestion above, about having you *un*check a box saying "Show friend-of on user profile" might help.) No need to remove a nice feature just because it confuses the ignorant (not an insult, just meaning those who don't know these things).

(Reply to this)


[info]midnightmadness
2006-02-16 02:58 pm UTC (link)
I give this one an emphatic no.

I personally don't use the feature, and don't ever see a situation where I would, but I see the point of it for those that do want it. Regardless, there are still multiple ways to view people's Friends Of lists even if they choose to hide them anyway, so those that really want to see it know how and already can anyway. "Changing it back" would be time wasted by the LJ Dev team.

(Reply to this)


[info]purple_munchkin
2006-02-16 03:08 pm UTC (link)
I like the option. Please keep it.

(Reply to this)


[info]ladysorka
2006-02-16 03:38 pm UTC (link)
No.

I have the optioned checked because people don't need to see, at a glance, what the ratio of "people I have friended" to "people who friend me" is, nor what people I don't friend back/don't friend me back.

I realize that the information is there if anyone wants to look for it, and hell, if they want to know that bad, they're welcome to it. But I don't feel it needs to be there when someone quick glances at my profile. (No, I don't use mutual friends either.)

(Reply to this)


[info]camomiletea
2006-02-16 04:07 pm UTC (link)
No. Well, I don't care either way much, but personally I've hidden my 'Also friend of' list, but I haven't banned anyone. If they want they can comment on my only public entry and ask to be friended.

(Reply to this)

Absolutely!
[info]caladri
2006-02-17 01:25 am UTC (link)
It's bad enough that half the userinfo pages I look at these days are full of obnoxious banners for how their friend's baby's momma's dog's cat is love (minimizing whatever significance the "marriage is love" thing might have had) without there being huge structural differences, and it's only getting worse. These days I get so confused trying to sort out friends/friendofs/mutualfriends/alsofriendof (and the fact there's no also-friends) that I usually break down and just read fdata.bml instead.

(Reply to this)


[info]i_am_spectrum
2006-02-17 02:26 pm UTC (link)
Very stupid idea.

(Reply to this)


[info]uniquewonders
2006-02-17 04:29 pm UTC (link)
No. I like this option.

Someone suggested writing public/private instead of hidden/don't display or whatever is written on the edit info page a short while ago and I think this is the best suggestion to lessen confusion and give users more control over what they want to display on their pages.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]caladri
2006-02-17 08:44 pm UTC (link)
public/private still implies security or privacy. That isn't the case.

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

(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-02-17 08:47 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]caladri, 2006-02-17 08:51 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - [info]uniquewonders, 2006-02-17 09:07 pm UTC (Expand)

[info]closingxtime
2006-02-17 07:23 pm UTC (link)
no thanks

(Reply to this)


[info]asciident
2006-04-13 07:53 pm UTC (link)
This suggestion has been migrated for implementation consideration.

[What does this mean?]

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]asciident
2006-04-13 10:01 pm UTC (link)
This suggestion has at this time been rejected by site employees. It will be reconsidered at a later date.

[What does this mean?]

(Reply to this) (Parent)


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