?

Log in

No account? Create an account
October 10th, 2001 - LiveJournal Development [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Development

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

October 10th, 2001

friend groups [Oct. 10th, 2001|02:29 pm]
LiveJournal Development

lj_dev

[mega]
(re http://www.livejournal.com/support/see_request.bml?id=18251)

I realise that friend groups have been allowed for new entries, but can someone allow it for editentries as well? I don't know what it will take, or if it was an oversight, but now that this option is avalible for Mac users (even if its only via the web) I can see this coming up again.
link8 comments|post comment

Hi, I'm annoyed. [Oct. 10th, 2001|02:30 pm]
LiveJournal Development

lj_dev

[cryo]
[mood |annoyedannoyed]
[music |Dave Matthews Band]

Therefore, I rant.

I was disappointed that the system was switched to requiring access codes, in (what I consider) to be a vain attempted to curb posting abuse, which happens anyway. When you consider that most of the clientele (I use this word loosely) is approximately 16 years old, you generally should expect immature activity to ensue. When you start focusing on promoting the service to adults, the scales will eventually sway, as will nuking inactive accounts.

But, that's all fine... nothing I can do about that anyway except bitch.

My problem occurred today. I started getting email. Why? Because someone in support posted that the download pages for clients should be updated to include the fact that people NEED this new access code. Problem is, that people are downloading the client from links that I have no control over... and worse, it doesn't make sense to have to require access codes for people who are downloading new clients.

So in my early morning fuming session, I think that clients should be updated to allow -1- account be created without requiring a key. This allows people who download the client to not end up with a useless hunk of software, and making US all look bad because it appears that we're a paid system... see the support article here: click

This would be something along the lines of my 'authenticated' client idea, where LJ keeps an MD5 sum of the size of the file distribution that gets reported when login occurs. This would keep 'bad clients' from being able to access the servers.

So... we should not smack those who are actually downloading clients from being able to experience LJ. I guess another possibility is to allow signups to occur from the clients.

Thoughts?
link11 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | October 10th, 2001 ]
[ go | Previous Day|Next Day ]