Networks, groups, private photos/videos/blogs

[admin2]

After much thought and discussions here we decided that we will not expand the network functionality in v1.13. We will expand this asap (one of the next updates) but not now.
To prevent Johnboy and others from coming here and killing me though, we will make it so friends will automatically get access to private photos and other private user items.
So if you want to allow someone access to your private photos, just add him/her as friend.
Actually it goes like this: member sees that you have private photos but a text tells him/her that the photos are private and that in order to see them he/she must be friends with you. Member asks you to become friends, you accept and then he/she will be able to see your private items.
Functionality to view the list of friends and remove friends already exists in the application so the work needed is minimal.

The reason for this approach is that no matter how we try to solve the problem of private item access, it will make things complicated. Either a separate network of people you would have to manage (or a group) or separate access on photos (3 people allowed to view this photo, 5 this other photo, etc), etc. I think it's just too much for a regular member who just want to have some fun. Things should be clean and easy to figure out. It can't get easier than this: friends are allowed to view all private items, the rest are not.
If you want to deny access to someone just remove him/her from friends.

I'd like your opinion on this...who's pro, who's against?

[maverick]

We will make it so friends will automatically get access to private photos and other private user items. So if you want to allow someone access to your private photos, just add him/her as friend.

Actually this the way I figured it was going to work anyway, didn't know you were trying to make it more complex by having groups where you would assign access to certain items. The whole group feature thing may be useful for certain types of sites, but for me that's just too complicated for my intended target audience to try and figure how to manage friends and groups.

If you're going to make a group feature, I think it should be an add-on mod and not part of the core because personally this isn't something I'm really interested in.

Having a site with lots of bells and whistles is seemingly a good thing and one would assume it will impress people and give you and edge over your competitors. There's no doubt that features are important elements in having a quality networking site, as long as they are real user friendly and uncomplicated to use. From my personal experience you can actually over feature a site, if you have too many complex features it can overwhelm the average user and actually drive them away.

Of course, the type of site you have along with demographics and intended target audience will play a big factor in how complex of features you should consider adding. In my case, so far the average age group of my target audience appears to be 40-60 and most are country bumpkins who aren't very techy.

Having it so all friends can view private items works for me.

So I guess I'm "PRO" in keeping things simple.

[strawberries90]

keep it simple, Dan. 

I don't want it any more complex than it already is.  Most folks (including me) will be totally confused if it gets any more complex.

I don't want GROUP features/networking.  Heck, I don't see any reason for private photos (unless in a site that allows nudity).  And since the vast majority of etano based websites won't be allowing nude pictures, private photos is pretty much a redundant feature  IMHO.   If a user wants to share a private picture, they can do it one-on-one  (e.g. email or messenger).  For those small minority of sites that require greater privacy features, then I think a plugin for their specific needs, would be the answer.

If you expand the network functionality for groups in 'one of the next updates' then I think it may be fork in the road time for me.   I don't want that type of overly complex type of site.  I'm not in competititon, nor do I want to be, with myspace or facebook.

Simple as she goes, captain.  Simple as she goes.  <har har drink up that bottle of rum me shipmates, keep her simple on the seven seas>
 

[TraderJoe]

I too am in favor of keeping things simple for people to figure out and like the idea of "friends" vs. "not friends" for being able to access private photos; however, I also feel it is very desirable to have some kind of "groups" feature, too, that is easy to use and figure out while still being purely optional to the user.  It seems to me that people would want and expect that, and that it would be an integral part of "social networking," as well as parallel what people do in "real life" offline to begin with.  Better safe than sorry, as in, better to have it available than not.

Etano is still a cool refreshing example of clean simplicity - when I look at other unencrypted competitors, including a well known free version, Etano blows them away and makes them look like cluttered and uncomfortable jalopies.  I believe the groups thing can be done while preserving the commitment to keeping things strong and simple.

On a side note I also like Mav's friend contacting idea over here:  http://forum.datemill.com/index.php/topic,2139.0.html

P.S.  I've posted this in the past, an article which had spoken so well about the "beauty" of simplicity:  The Surprising Truth About Ugly Websites.

[maverick]

I can see the Groups feature being beneficial for certain types of networking sites, especially for those trying to create something along the lines of MySpace or Facebook, but I don't think it's something I need for my particular site. Although, my mind could possibly change if it was something that was extremely easy for users to understand and manage (as TraderJoe said), and most importantly didn't create needless bloat, especially to the database.

I would need to see it in action, or at least see some screenshots to determine if it's something that should be part of the core or be offered as an add-on feature. That's the nice thing about add-ons, people can then build a site that suits their needs. Things that would be a benefit to the vast majority of users which doesn't create too much bloat, naturally should be part of the core.

[mlewis]

>him/her that the photos are private and that in order to see them he/she must be >friends with you. Member asks you to become friends, you accept and then he/she >will be able to see your private items.

I've seen this on many sites, it's usually called an album and you can allow public or private access to certain albums. It's a good draw.

>Functionality to view the list of friends and remove friends already exists in the >application so the work needed is minimal.

Being able to remove those you've allowed is a good function. Having a list of those allowed would be good too. I see this is being covered actually.

Wishlist: How about by code access? You give someone a code, they are given access from a public perspective so that users can display images to those who have a code but have not registered on the site yet. Maybe that's already included, don't know.

Mike

[TraderJoe]

What I'm thinking, too, is that I don't need or even want to compete with the biggest whales in the sea - I'm thinking in terms of niche and regional offerings.  Yes, no matter how you slice it, that's still competing with the whales at some point or on some level, but only on a smaller scale, and there's room in the sea for all or at least many.  So for instance, you may not want to capture the whole world or your entire nation with your site, but you may be covering a whole city, province, or state, or perhaps a particular affinity or faith based group, or yes even a cross section of your whole country.  Such an audience, I think, would probably still be looking for group-style options to be available.  I can live without millions of members and believe I would be happy with only thousands.

[maverick]

Wishlist: How about by code access? You give someone a code, they are given access from a public perspective so that users can display images to those who have a code but have not registered on the site yet. Maybe that's already included, don't know.

I believe a similar type of function exists in the original DSB2 where you can password protect photos and then give out the passwords to friends. Which is fine for some sites, especially that are adult related. The problem with this method is managing the codes or passwords and handing them out when requested. Not exactly ideal for those wanting to keep things as basic and simple as possible, however if it's a feature that some feel is needed because they are running an adult site for example, it should be offered as an add-on.

To keep things simple, friends having access to private items should be suffice for the core and appease most people's needs, those that want or need something more robust I think it might be best to offer them as add-ons.

[mlewis]

Doesn't have to be adult, here's an example.
Someone advertises on a dating site. They put a bunch of images up on their site but they don't want all of them public. Not because they are adult but because they wish to keep a little privacy so they have one or two pretty basic images up for public view.

They want to show a friend or two the other images they have on the site, they hand out a code or two. Codes would be easy to maintain, just allow the user to create an ID and that's the code. So say I want my friend Jill to peek at my other pictures, I create the code called Jill and she can now log in using it. It's super easy for me to remember what the Jill access code was so I delete it when done.

Perhaps I create another called 'peek' which I hand out now and the other prospective matches I have contacted so feel comfy enough to give more pictures to.

Etc etc. It's definitely something useful and fun for many uses. However, I suggest just making it albums. Allow users to create albums which they can place as many images as the admin allows per album. Admin also specifies how many albums members can have.

This way, adult or not, folks can create different albums of one or more images, each with their own code. Now they can give a peek to a little more, what ever they want, to whom ever they want.

Mike

[strawberries90]

definitely sounds like you need an add-on, Mike.

The core of Etano (in my humble opinion) should be straightforward and cover the needs of the vast majority of webmasters who use the script.  Those few webmasters who need to modify it further, need to look towards modding/add-ons.

[mlewis]

>definitely sounds like you need an add-on, Mike.
>The core of Etano (in my humble opinion) should be straightforward and cover the >needs of the vast majority of webmasters who use the script.  Those few webmasters >who need to modify it further, need to look towards modding/add-ons.

Actually, I was just adding my own thoughts, I don't care if we get those functions or not. The dating site to me should be basic, anything else beyond that goes to a CMS like Joomla or Drupal, or something else. Can't have it all in one app, it's simply too complex.

On the other hand, if Datemill wants to add it, it just means more integration so it's also cool either way.

Mike

[TraderJoe]

I'm open-minded about it, too, but aren't groups considered essential for the SN side of things, as opposed to dating, whether core or addon?

Btw, Strawberries I just sent you a PM about a different matter, didn't want to change the subject here...

[mlewis]

>I'm open-minded about it, too, but aren't groups considered essential for the SN side of >things, as opposed to dating, whether core or addon?

I guess I feel that if you add groups and SN goodies, then it's becoming more of a SN application. The thing is, unless Datemill wants to invest in an all out SN app, there are countless SN apps out there already doing it. I suspect it best to have a few smaller SN goodies into the app but keeping it what it is, a dating site app with features which are related to dating/relationship making.

I don't know what Dan's plans are but trying to be everything to everyone is a tough call as we all know.

Mike

[maverick]

Mike is right, you can't make a one size fits all app. Etano is designed as a community CMS that can be taken in most any direction, which is why mods and add-ons are the key. There's often a fine line between having a dating and an SN site. Many dating sites are also about making friends as well, rather than being just a hardcore dating and match making service, which IMO would classify as being partially a SN site, or SN lite if you prefer. However, if your site is at least partially a dating site you might not want visitors, members, or even those on your friend's list to see or have access to others in your friend's list. Imagine if you're a guy seeking a mate and female member is interested in your profile then she sees you already have 30 attractive women as friends, she may think you're either a player or she doesn't stand a chance, and just moves on. So the point is, having hardcore SN features in the core can be bad for those running dating type sites.

Again, that's why I'm for just keeping it simple for the core where those who have been added as friends have access to your private items, which should appease most types of sites, even a basic SN site. If someone needs something deeper into the SN side of things, it should be offered as an add-on mod. I always have a fear of the script unintentionally evolving into a MySpace or Facebook app, YUCK!!!!

[TraderJoe]

Well, it seems to me you have two basic questions here:

1.  Should groups be available at all?
2.  If yes, core or addon?

My impression is that in order to round out Etano as a platform which had its roots in and evolved from dating, as a new community/dating/social/affinity/other entity, "groups" ought to be available as soon as feasible.

If it were a reasonably priced addon, that could perhaps generate more revenue for Dan, et al, and provide an incentive to do it to begin with so that people are happy all around.

If it were in the core, it should be a purely optional feature so that it wouldn't even have to appear at all; one should be able to turn it on or off like a light bulb from the admin.  This way, people like Mav and others who may have reservations about it could avoid it altogether if they wish while they and everyone else still have access to it if they want or change their mind.  That seems pretty win-win to me.