Friends list culls and other things...

[chrisvenus]

Something I felt I wanted to rant about having done so briefly on winterthing's journal...

What does it mean to be removed from somebody's friends list? Is it personal?

Well, whether it is personal I'm not sure about. What it actually means though is, assuming they are aware of how LJ works properly, a statement that they don't want you to read any of their friends only posts.

Many people seem to think it means that you don't have time to read somebody's journal or that you don't find them interesting. Yeah, removing somebody from your friends list does solve these problems but it also does what I stated above. And given that there is a way of not reading somebody's journal that doesn't involve any other side effects then, assuming they know how to do things on livejournal, removing somebody from the friends list must mean you don't want them to read things.

I've seen a bit of a spate of LJ culling recently so I thought I'd post this.

http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=102 gives instructions on use of friends groups including how to make a filter that makes your friends page only display a subsection of your total friends.

Pretty much it boils down to:

If you create a custom friends group named "Default View", visiting your standard Friends page will display only entries from members of the "Default View" group.


So yeah, in future if you want to take me off your friends list I'll be assuming its because you don't want me to read any friends only posts you make.

And no, this isn't aimed as a crticitism at anybody since I assume that most people don't know how to use the functionality. Its just phrased to encourage people to use the features that LJ provide in order to enrich the LJ experience for everybody.

Comments

[lathany.livejournal.com]

What it actually means though is, assuming they are aware of how LJ works properly, a statement that they don't want you to read any of their friends only posts.

and

Many people seem to think it means that you don't have time to read somebody's journal or that you don't find them interesting.

Have to say, I would mostly assume the latter of these two options. Whilst you've detailed a fix to this in terms of a custom filter, surely the same thing applies to the former by creating a custom group and then using that instead of "Friends Only"?

Certainly I stick with the default filter but I rarely use "Friends Only" (I also rarely lock posts). In fact, "Friends Only" tends to simply mean that I've mentioned work somewhere in the post.

[lathany.livejournal.com]

And, possibly on the subject of locked posts, I can't find the rant you had on winterthing's journal...

*nods*

[vilenspotens.livejournal.com]

Good plan. Have done. 3 New groups.
Cheers

[davedevil.livejournal.com]

*nods* this is what I do, its a wierd situation, I think its the use of the word friend that makes it so 'personal'

[snow-leopard.livejournal.com]

I think creating a default view is sort of cheating - unless you have 200+ friends and simply cannot read them all, but even so is it not better to just remove people rather than make a pretense that you have interest in what they have to say?
I personally keep on my friends list only those people who I feel have any interest in what I have to say.

[chrisvenus]

But that's making a statement of sorts. Its saying that you only want people to read if you think they are interested. If somebody is interested and you don't realise then they can't read. It may be that somebody is on your friends list now but never comments on your journal ever. You might think this means he's not interested but he might be. If you remove him then that is saying that he can't read your non-public stuff.

And also its only a pretense that you are interested in what they have to say if you assume that being on somebody's friends list means that you want to read their journal. I think this is basically arguing the opposite direction to me so if we combine our logic we go round in circles. Therefore I think we should not. :)

[snow-leopard.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. Its my journal, I decide who sees it and if I only want people who have an interest in me to read it then so be it. And yes whether people comment or not is a part of deciding who or who not is interested - if they can't be arsed to comment occasionally or indeed don't find what I want to say interesting enough to comment ocassionally then that demonstrates a lack of interest (IMO).
And the majority of my post are friends only so there is nothing of real content that is public.

[chrisvenus]

Ah, in that case I agree with you wholeheartedly. As long as you recognise that you are depriving them of access as well as just stopping reading theirs then that's cool. I just have minor objections to people who don't seem to be making that decision consciously. :)

[kissifa.livejournal.com]

I use friend filters - if you want to rant about deeply personal stuff then I don't really want casual acquaintances knowing that kind of stuff about me, or whoever I may mention in my posts (cause I don't know how well they know them either), and if you're ranting or whingeing about relationships, it really doesn't do to either remove your S.O. from your friend's list, nor is it ever a good plan to let them see posts about such things.

Filters are tremendously useful things. :)

I also think davedevil is right - they use about as broad a term as they can use for it, but it's still a word that can have narrow and personal connotations for people.

[verlaine.livejournal.com]

I agree with Dawn: I'd have said that getting removed from someone's flist just means they no longer have the time or energy to read you, unless there was strong evidence to suggest otherwise.

I would tend to assume that if someone didn't want you to read their sensitive posts, they'd create a special filter for that purpose. I know some people intuit the exact opposite, but my point is that it's by no means a foregone conclusion.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Further note for the sneakily inclined: Use of custom locks is (as far as I can tell) indistinguishable from normal locking. This makes them much preferable to removing someone from your flist, at least from my point of view.

[triskellian]

But isn't use of custom locks without specifying who you're locking to just asking for trouble of the 'you're on his friends list so you must have seen that post' variety?

[venta.livejournal.com]

Indeed. This is why I applaud some people's habit of being very specific about the people to whom a locked post is visible.

[chrisvenus]

But it doesn't just mean that. It also, by programmatic definition, mean that they can't read anything you write non-public. I guess this isn't relevant if your journal is always public but most people seem to use friends only from time to time.

Maybe another post on the nature of friends only is more relevant. :)

[secretrebel.livejournal.com]

I custom lock some posts to different parts of my friends list but I don't use filters. I only friend people if I think there's a reasonable chance I'll be interested in what they have to say on their journal and I defriend them again if I lose interest in that.

While I could set up filters, I don't see much point in having a friends list of 'Everyone I Know' and a subsection 'default view' of 'People Whose Journals I Find Interesting'. Unless it's a sop to make people think I think their journals are interesting when I don't.

That's just me though. I can see the use of filters for people with huge friends lists. I'm now wondering how esoteric filters get. 'People Whose Journals I Want To Read On A Monday Morning', 'People With Attractive User Icons', 'Angry People', 'Mopey People', 'People Who Only Want Single Line *hugs* As a Reply'.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

Amusing and potentially apocryphal LJ story, forwarded through e-mail from a friends-locked post which I wouldn't have otherwise got to see:

---

I don't often look at my webstats, but I just had a gander, and discovered that pictures that I've posted recently on this journal are being fetched from someone's "friends" filter which is labelled "assholes".

People obviously tend not to know that this stuff can be visible. For instance, someone has an excellent filter called "not irredeemable", for instance.

---

See also wayfairer who has public links to friends-list filters entitled: smurfs, fraggles, snorks, jem and the holograms, pound puppies, transformers, care bears, gummy bears, muppet babies, masters of the universe, chipmunks, heroes in a halfshell and inspector gadget. No idea whether they're actually used or merely for show.

[triskellian]

If I was to defriend someone, it would be because I didn't want to read their journal. If I just didn't want them to read my locked posts, I'd make a new filter that excluded them (and I try to state who I'm locking to when I use filters). I don't think I'd ever create a custom default view to exclude an individual journal (as opposed to an RSS feed or a community) from my friends list, because that feels dishonest, as if I want you to think I'm reading your journal, but I'm secretly not even skimming.

I don't think it would occur to me that someone might be upset at no longer having access to my locked posts. I've changed security settings on posts before, turning posts that were public or filtered into private posts, sometimes on posts with comments, and I don't see removing someone from your flist, or a specific filter, as any different.

If I found I didn't want to read the journal of a person who I particularly wanted to be able to read my locked posts, I'd leave them on my flist, and just ignore their posts, but otherwise, their access to my locked posts would be irrelevant in deciding whether or not to defriend.

[frax.livejournal.com]

I don't think it would occur to me that someone might be upset at no longer having access to my locked posts.

I agree and when it was pointed out to me that people might feel this way my reaction was largely - tough shit. I do and think all sorts of private things, just because in this case it is obvious to someone that I am not *sharing* with them I don't see why I should feel bad about it. If they don't like it they can ask me and I will happily explain why.

[venta.livejournal.com]

What it actually means though is, assuming they are aware of how LJ works properly, a statement that they don't want you to read any of their friends only posts.

That's not quite fair - you mean "assuming they use LJ in the same way I do"

I don't post friends-only entries; I've never posted anything which wasn't publicly readable. If I take someone off my friends list it is because they are posting things which I don't want to read, have no interest in, can't understand, or just don't feel to be relevant to me.

Which is rather a differnent statement to make.

[chrisvenus]

True. And having read some comments I may need to make a followup. I very rarely use friends only. Its still the case though that there are people that may bore me but that I am happy to read the few things I do put friends only. I don't see the point of removing them from my friends list when I could just remove them from my filter view.

[venta.livejournal.com]

Oh aye, I wasn't suggesting that what you'd said wasn't the sensible thing for you to do. Just that it wasn't applicable to me - my friends is list is purely a list of journals I wish to see, so creating filters would be pointless for me.

[finding_helena]

*cruises through friendsfriends, stops to comment*

See, sometimes I do consider just making a Default View and leaving people out. But 1. the people I want to drop usually don't comment on my journal much. and 2. if I don't read someone's journal often or they don't comment often, I don't feel like I know them very well. And I don't want people I don't feel I know at all having access to my friends-only posts.

Though lately almost everything is FO to avoid a stalker, so I might have to rethink.

[easternpromise.livejournal.com]

I agree with you - being taken off someone's Friends list generally means to me that I'm no longer their friend for whatever reason, and the only reason I've taken people off my friends list in the past is because I no longer want anything to do with them and have some reason for wanting them to KNOW I no longer want anything to do with them. Otherwise I just use filter lists for the posts that I don't want certain people to see and do want others to see.

In general I don't have that many people on my list so if I can't read everything on there and make the odd comment here or there, it's either because I'm not making the time or because I'm having a slack day. Or else I'm a total witch.

Hmm. Latter option I think. :)

hmm...

[susanofstohelit.livejournal.com]

since my journal is entirely friends-only, I suppose this could be important to me. But, my personal policy is to only take people off my friends list if they never update (which usually means they've abandoned the journal). but it's not entirely the same situation for me, because most of the people on my list are also people who I've at least met and certainly like in real life, or who I find very interesting.

[tandia.livejournal.com]

Personally I have *checks* 129 friends, 95 communities and 1 feed. If I tried to read them all on a friends page it would be insane! Instead I have a lot of different friends groups and use them to both lock things that are private or often just irrelevant to a group of people (eg some lengthy thing about Perth that people elsewhere would have no interest in) but also to read in order of what is important to me, so I read my husband and housemate's posts first, and people i have never actually spoken to and just seem interesting last, everyone else falls somewhere inbetween and communities I usually read from the community page in big chunks as i feel interested. If I don't want someone to read anything that i lock i just put them into a group that doesn't have access to that (or make one), if i find i don't care what someone is saying and don't want to read it then i'll put them into a group i read only when i have time and will probably just skim through. It took me a while to set it up like that since i did it after i'd already had a lj for a while but it works well now and is really flexible. The only thing is i would like a feature to copy the contents of an existing custom friends list to a new list and then edit that. Its also worth noting that there is no limit to how many groups someone can be in, from none to all of them. And my default view is everyone except communities, which means if i've read everything and i want to see what new i just reload that. Apparently other people want to read my friends page too and it seemed only reasonable not to flood it with community posts or it gets crazy.