eruthros | still feeling around here

I just realized that I've got some old flocked-not-filtered posts with my name and other personal information in them, so I'm going to take most folks off the grants-access list until I finish going through my imported lj entries and deleting/unflocking as appropriate. (I'm already in mid-2003! Or, to put it another way, I'm only in mid-2003!)

And after that, I dunno. I'm still trying to think through how I plan to use dreamwidth, and what it means to the grants-access front. I understand "subscribing," and I know what I want to subscribe to. But grants-access -- well, I'm not planning to flock anything, really. So, what does it mean to grant access to something that isn't there? And why should I be deciding who I would, theoretically, let read about my work day, if I were to write about said work day, when I plan to do no such thing? So I'm not sure what grants-access means to me.

I'd appreciate thoughts on this, btw, because I'm trying to figure out how to use grants-access, and what it means to other people to be granted access.

ETA: for full disclosure and all, I do filter. Usually either away from someone (see: birthdays) or to someone in particular (see: cooperative projects, reminders, etc).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

t's weird for folks who never flock or, like me, flock everything. Because at that point the access list makes no sense :)

Funnily, I know that many folks will feel weird not being granted access, but for me it'll feel more of a snub not getting read :) [I'm not sure what that says about me!!! *g*]

You could not grant access to anyone, then. Or, alternatively, make everyone feel loved and access everyone. Or, you could think about who knows your RL name and background info and just make that your access list in case you ever do want to bitch about something that you don't want your professional environment to be able to see--however unlikely...

Yes, exactly! I only ever flocked out personal information/work stuff -- but if I'm dividing the work stuff into a different journal, then it's hard for me to see what I'd lock here. And I'm sure there's something, but since I don't know what it is yet, it's hard to make a policy for an imaginary future. :)

D'you know offhand if you have to grant people access in order to put them on filters? Because I do use filters sometimes -- mostly for things like birthdays (leaving the birthday person out) or for things like collaborative projects (leaving collaborators in). Which would mean I'd have to grant access to some people, and if I have to do that already, then maybe your third option is best.

Yes you do. When you get to that page it tells you that you need to grant access to put people in filters.

With what trobadora is saying (the psychological component), I'm thinking access all might not be a bad thing?

I've been giving the access thing some thought, too. Hell, I never needed a friending policy on LJ, but methinks I won't get around formulating one here! *g* Anyway, the way I'm inclined to think about it is a mutual relationship of trust - and even if you don't actually flock anything, granting access is a gesture of trust. So I think I'll probably eventually remove access for everyone who's not reciprocally granting it.

But I'm still thinking about it.

Hmm, that sounds like a good way to conceptualize it -- since I don't yet know what, if anything, I'd be posting that requires locking, I'd be making a list based on trusting people generally. Hmmm.

*uses flocking icon*

After thinking about it, I decided to grant access to every subscriber, whether or not they grant access, for purposes of being able to flock things away from the general public. (For example, music posts.) But I use filters regularly for the personal stuff I want to lock to people who I trust with, e.g., my real name.

God, you're way past me--I've only just finished 2002!

As far as the "grants access" thing, here are my thoughts. When I started my LJ back in 2002, I posted almost everything public, then had to go back and lock (and am still dealing with that now). Things change, and you may well decide you want to post stuff that's locked more than you think you're going to now. You may find yourself moving over here more permanently than you think you will now. I guess my feeling is, better safe than sorry--set up things now so that you can lock things, and if you don't actually need to, it's not going to do any harm. You know?

I have never been a regular poster -- I might've joined in 2001, but there's, like, a six-month gap in mid-2002. It makes this part of it easier!

And that's a good point re: granting access. I probably will end up feeling like I need to lock things, even if I can't imagine what those things are now. I was thinking of those as potential filters, but I see your point.

I haven't got around to working out how dw subscribe/access works for me. I suspect it fits less well with my usual social inclinations than lj friending.

I've never been shy about subscribing to livejournals I'd like to read if the owner chooses to post publicly but I only have time to read about 50 personal journals whereas my lj is on the friends list of over 170 people. I almost never post locked (about 7 posts out of about 1070) so having "access" to my journal has no benefit to the accessee. I did wonder if granting access to people who've subscribed to my journal but to whom I don't subscribe might encourage them to comment? I dunno. I'd say I sometimes find being watched by lots of silent readers sorta creepy but if they did all suddenly decided to comment then I probably wouldn't have time to even reply to everyone and my more in-depth conversations might be drowned out. I also suspect that if I grant access to lots of people I don't know especially well and they then discover no locked content on my journal than they'll conclude they're still being filtered out anyway. ::wry face::

I'd worked out how to negotiate the social expectations in my communities on lj but now I have to learn again within a new framework on dw.

Yes, that's exactly it! I had figured out the social expectations on lj -- and I did lock, for discussions of work/school/things involving the word "megaupload" -- but now the tools are different AND my content is likely to be different, so it's hard for me to figure it out without trial and error.

Also, you make a really good point about the way granting-access may make folks feel more welcome to comment even though there's nothing locked.

still feeling around here

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject