I'm not really sure what such a commenting level would be really useful for, though.
Clearing up an inconsistency in how Livejournal-and-its-clones deal with comments, and I think it's a good idea.
Livejournal currently offers three methods for people to present credentials when making a comment: purely anonymous, with identity verified by an external provider (for this discussion, The Facebook and OPENID will be lumped together), and with identity verified by Livejournal. Options for accepting comments are: all, not anonymous, friends-only, none.
The practical upshot is confusion. The "not anonymous" setting rejects all anonymous comments and some from external providers. "Friends only" allows comments only from those people listed as friends. There's no clear mapping between the options available to commenters and the options presented to journal-owners.
I have no stake in Livejournal any more, but I would not be opposed to an alignment of kind originally proposed: "not anonymous" should mean precisely that anonymous comments are rejected, and "not external providers" would mean that only Livejournal accounts could comment.
Aligning both sides of the user experience is surely a good thing in and of itself. The additional level would effectively grant an opt-out to people concerned that OPENID makes trivial assertions, or that because The Facebook's owners are lying weaselly toerags who are only in it for their own glory and profit, any assertions their servers may make are likely to be weaselly lies.
The original thread, and the resulting formal Suggestion, then diverges into excluding certain posts from RSS feeds and disabling other features. This is scope creep.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
no subject
Date: 2010-09-16 06:21 pm (UTC)Clearing up an inconsistency in how Livejournal-and-its-clones deal with comments, and I think it's a good idea.
Livejournal currently offers three methods for people to present credentials when making a comment: purely anonymous, with identity verified by an external provider (for this discussion, The Facebook and OPENID will be lumped together), and with identity verified by Livejournal. Options for accepting comments are: all, not anonymous, friends-only, none.
The practical upshot is confusion. The "not anonymous" setting rejects all anonymous comments and some from external providers. "Friends only" allows comments only from those people listed as friends. There's no clear mapping between the options available to commenters and the options presented to journal-owners.
I have no stake in Livejournal any more, but I would not be opposed to an alignment of kind originally proposed: "not anonymous" should mean precisely that anonymous comments are rejected, and "not external providers" would mean that only Livejournal accounts could comment.
Aligning both sides of the user experience is surely a good thing in and of itself. The additional level would effectively grant an opt-out to people concerned that OPENID makes trivial assertions, or that because The Facebook's owners are lying weaselly toerags who are only in it for their own glory and profit, any assertions their servers may make are likely to be weaselly lies.
The original thread, and the resulting formal Suggestion, then diverges into excluding certain posts from RSS feeds and disabling other features. This is scope creep.