suggestions that will never happen

[denise]

I'm looking to do a dw_biz post about "suggestions that will never happen" that we can then link to from dw_suggestions and the suggestions generator: things that we've been asked for multiple times that we can explain our reasoning on why they won't happen, so people can know to stop asking.

So, what are the suggestions you guys keep seeing that we've decided against in the past? Off the top of my head, I can think of "more userpics", "allow userpics to be hosted off-site", "let us just buy X paid account feature, not the whole paid account" (specifically, a-la-carte userpics), and "make X feature free for everyone". I'm sure there are others, though; what am I forgetting?

Comments

[cesy]

Those are the main ones I've noticed recently.

It might also be good to include some general principles, such as people retaining control over their own comments and entries - you can lock an entry someone has commented on, but they can still delete that comment, and things like that.

[yvi]

A few of the things that are outside of DW's control? Not sure how regularly those kind of requests come up, I can only remember the ljArchive request, but you probably see a few more?

[mark]

I thought we talked about this online the other day. Why will 'more userpics' never happen?

[chris]

Very, very good idea. I'm guessing things you might have decided against rather than remembering what you've said you've decided against here:

The ability to stop other people from adding you to their Reading list.
Userpics with increased file sizes.

[alierak]

Ads? Though I sincerely hope no one would ever actually suggest it.

[foxfirefey]

Probably something about not being able to take over "abandoned" accounts and not purging accounts that aren't deleted?

[azurelunatic]

Someone is more likely to suggest something like "Allow me to put ads from X service on my journal (so I can profit from it)".

[azurelunatic]

A logged-in-users-only level of "security", a ban expanded to be ban-from-allowing-them-to-read-my-public-stuff rather than just ban-from-contacting.

[cleverthylacine]

I am guessing that she doesn't mean "we'll never increase the number of userpics per user group" but rather something along the lines of "we'll never sell anything like 'Insane Userpics'" (and seriously, Squeaky is nuts, and I often wonder if Insane Userpics aren't the reason his Userpic databases are always fucking up all over the place...I would rather have the number my account gets to have and no more and be able to count on them, than to buy more.)

[cleverthylacine]

this, please.

One of the reasons we are eventually going to move LW to its own server and all is that we'd rather not have to make fake private posts in dead characters' journals to save them from deletion...

[cleverthylacine]

is that even possible?

[sofiaviolet]

I would say either "no" or "sort of, but it's not going to be what the requester expects or wants."

[azurelunatic]

It might be possible to do, yes, on a "if this is logged-in user X, do not serve them Y", treating "public" content basically like another security setting. And polls and such are treated differently between logged-in and logged-out users.

But from an actually usable level, it would be immensely NO.

[cesy]

The former, technically yes, I believe, but it really doesn't provide much security, only the illusion of it. The latter is not even possible. Both ideas are regularly requested by people who don't understand that if something is public on the internet, it is *public* on the *internet* and *anyone* can read it, yes, even if you turn on no-robots.

[denise]

It won't necessarily never happen, it'll just never happen becasue someone submitted a suggestion to us and we went "oh man I never thought of that before!" etc.

I just want to put a moratorium on those because they're so common.

[keeva]

A pony! I want a pony.

[denise]

You can have a pony! (Once we get vgifts enabled.)

[sid]

*gets in line for ponys, omg!*

[slowsculpture]

*Will start requesting slightly bigger ponies, as soon as ponies become available.*

[zarhooie]

When ponies become available, I have been promised one.

[dreamatdrew]

Sadly enough.... I couldn't object to this on a policy level. If it's stuck on THEIR DW account only, whodafrack cares.
Making ads system wide would just break Rah tho, so no.

[mackiedockie]

Decisions, decisions. A la carte before the pony?

[yvi]

The former, technically yes, I believe, but it really doesn't provide much security, only the illusion of it.

It'll keep search engines from indexing, as far as I am aware.

[sami]

Some of those, I don't even get the reasoning. Like, userpics hosted offsite *why*, exactly?

As for "make X feature free for everyone"... yes. All the most desirable features should be free for everyone, that makes perfect sense OH WAIT.

[cesy]

Usually, I think it's so they can have more userpics - they figure that means DW doesn't have to pay for the bandwidth, so it's okay.

[cesy]

*groan*

[kaki]

A la carte userpics.

Selling more Seed Accounts.

A la carte userpics.

Enabling scripts and stuff directly everywhere. (Though I don't know if that's something that's asked very often.)

A la carte userpics.

Deleting inactive accounts.

A la carte userpics.

Offering other site languages.

A la carte userpics.

Stop using the invite codes system.

A la carte userpics.

Seriously, tell people they won't come. (Even better, tell those who keep spamming LJ's news posts with it, too ...)
The other things haven't been mentioned, though, I think.

(Edited to add something I remembered after sending.)

[cesy]

The reason people keep spamming LJ's news posts is because LJ promised they would do it, and then haven't said anything since. The spam wouldn't continue if LJ actually announced that they weren't going to do it - the problem is the lack of communication.

[azurelunatic]

If it were to happen, it would probably have to be a paid account only feature (no getting free accounts and then using them to profit at DW's expense), and the Terms of Service may have something to say about it as well.

[azurelunatic]

You want to be careful with escalating requests of that type.

[azurelunatic]

It wouldn't continue so much if there were a "Yes, we know, we're working on it" or any sort of acknowledgment in the news post, even though at one point or another there were employees commenting with "yes we know we're working on it".

[kaki]

I know, and it's probably not right of them to not reply at all. But if the people who keep asking would listen and understand why it might be a problem, maybe they'd show at least a bit more patience. Not meaning to say what LJ's doing is very nice, it's just really getting on my nerves. (Partly because to me the whole userpic hype seems just exaggerated.)

[baggyeyes]

Damn fine Internet comedy.

[pauamma]

What level do you need to cast Summon Bigger Pony? :-)

[pauamma]

Editing comments. Oh, wait. Never mind.

[frith]

*will be requesting fresh, housebroken ponies that fit through the doggy-door and let themselves out to trim and fertilize the lawn*

[sporky_rat]

For the love of all that is wonderful, please don't team up with snap.com with that annoying graphical preview of links.

[zvi]

Thought of one. It's not so much a suggestion that it'll never happen (and, honestly, it is a suggestion of which I myself have been guilty!) but explain the circumstances under which the Create/Organize/Read/Explore/Shop menu might be reorganized, and when it won't.

[dragonfly]

*groan* +1

[zvi]

Support the title attribute in <user> tag. I don't know that it comes up often, but it's something LJ has that is cool that we're not going to.

[chris]

I hope that "enabling Google AdSense on DW journals" would appear in this list without anyone actually ever having to suggest it. All you would need for justification would be to point to the second sentence of the second last para of DW's Guiding Principles: We are personally and ideologically against displaying advertising on a community-based service.