Search Results for 'private'
-
Search Results
-
This is similar to an issue I found and have an open ‘Critical’ ticket on.
If you go to your account and then activity > friends you are able to view updates/comments made by a friend who is a member of a hidden group but which you are not, what is worse is that not only can you read content made to a group that you should not be able to read but you can also use the ‘reply’ to add a comment that will then appear in the hidden group.
I’m afraid that for me hidden groups are no such thing and represent a real issue if people use them believing them to be hidden and private in nature.
To date I have had little response on this, the ticket is still open and but for the very kind help of Boone, who helped or rather provided a interim hack to hide the activity altogether, there feels as though there is not a huge deal of concern over an issue of this nature when Andy dropped into the forum thread I raised on the issue it was simply to tick me off for incorrectly referring to hidden groups as ‘private hidden’ – Sorry Andy just thought it may have merited a little more concern than nomenclature issues
Here’s what I’m thinking in terms of user stories, assuming 2 groups (A and
:“I’m a user of Group A, so on the main blog, I see all Posts tagged A. I don’t see Posts tagged B.”
“I’m a user of Group B, so on the main blog, I see all Posts tagged B. I don’t see Posts tagged A.”
“I’m a user of Groups A and B, so on the main blog, I see all Posts tagged A and B.”
It will use blog tags, not blog categories.
It will support normal, private, and hidden forum types.
Assuming a post is tagged with A and B, the permissions are as expected:
“I’m a member of group A. I can see the post tagged A and B.”
“I’m a member of group B. I can see the post tagged A and B.”
the index won’t paginate and it will only display public and/or if that certain user is a member of other private/hidden groups – at least that is what the logic is suppose to do
@Mike Pratt
I think another amusing point about the whole “online social community” thing is that people mistakenly think Facebook invented all these concepts and that we’re somehow “ripping off” Facebook by emulating these features.
Facebook did not invent ANY of the key features people associate with social networking.
That credit goes to the dial-up bulletin board community of the late 1980’s. Specifically, a piece of software called “The Major BBS”, which you can learn about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_BBS
Twenty years ago, when I was coding “plug-ins” in C for Major BBS, we had ALL of the following features:
Poking = “Paging” You would type “/p username” and it would pop-up on the other user’s screen if they were online. Or if they were offline the system would queue-up pages and notify you when you logged back in.
User Profiles = “User Registry”
Facebook Apps = “Add Ons”
Chat = “Teleconference”
Private Messaging = “Site Mail”
Friends = (Implemented using a lot of different features, but to the same net effect.)
Activity Stream = “Site News(?)”
Groups = “Forums” (Entirely text based)
Photos = “File Archives”. (Text based, queued downloads. At the time it would have taken 20 minutes to download a 300×600 pixel image, and JPG had not been invented yet. So you would queue the images you wanted to see and let them download overnight)
Marketplace = (Done with “classified ads” add-on)
FaceBook Ads = (Ads were manually added to pages by the SysOp, but could be paid for online with a credit card using another add-on)
And many of the major BBS features in turn emulate old UNIX functionality.
So to all those who are worried about [insert company name] patenting [whatever feature] or who feel bad about “copying” what somebody else is doing, practically any patent claim can be easily invalidated by showing prior art.
Anyways, back to coding…
^F^
