HOME | DD
I-am-Britta β
dA Block Improvement
Published: 2011-01-10 22:44:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 10070; Favourites: 193; Downloads: 87
Redirect to original
Description
This is my very rough first idea for improving dA's block system. Since receiving feedback on it, I've made an improved version:dA Block Revised
I've tried my best to incorporate the suggestions people have given me, and I hope I've succeeded to some extent!
Comments on this have been disabled since I have an updated version.
Related content
Comments: 248
Okay.
About the "block user button", that's a TERRIBLE idea. I know this for a FACT. Having such a powerful tool armed and ready to go would cause people to be more twitchy and block at the first sign of trouble because it's as easy as eating candy. It's like putting a gun into the hand of a coward. Cowards run rampant on dA and block people just for giving criticism or being warned about having copyright infringing material in their galleries.
Tick box options:
1) This is pure bias and generalizes an artist's work with his personality. Of course, favorites are removed when you block, but- Actually, I kinda like this. If you have someone posting nothing but pr0n then you can just set this up so you don't have to look at it. However, this would not be useful for someone who reports these things. Then again, it's a tick box and therefor optional.
2) Now that's just terrible. This allows folks to easily hide everything and not have to deal with it. If the comments remain it might provoke the user to look over it again. Sometimes the people we accuse of being asshats aren't actually asshats, just good people with a hole lot of raeg. I know one. Many. Besides, if the person making the comment makes a fool of himself, you can leave it there for shits and giggles.
3) This is already done through standard blocking. However, I recommend making a secondary tick box for this one allowing them to go only to certain places. Say... an "Apologies" forum that you host on your page. Not exactly the best idea, but it's better to have it and not need it.
4) Again, this is also done through normal blocking, and I don't think anyone blocked would want to do any critiquing.
5) This is better if you do it manually from the group, as groups use a similar HTML setup as another deviant, and it might cause software issues.
6) Same as 5.
7) this is done already with current blocking.
I can see this thing getting a DD because of it asking for blocking options, which I like. I like things to be HEAVILY customizable. Bah, that was biased. Anyway, it is a nice concept, especially with all of the different components of the internet slowly combining. Provided dA lasts that long.
π: 0 β©: 1
I definitely understand the button thing. There certainly doesn't need to be one. I'm currently working on a HUGE revision for this, which features two redo ideas: 1) to have the block option under the watch menu, which will lead to the page you see in the idea; and 2) to keep the "my settings" page but when you click "save," to bring up a pop-up menu like the one you see when you delete submissions. It would ask you why you're blocking them. Obviously, with suggestion #1, you would still have a block option on the profile pages, but it wouldn't be in the form of a huge button that people could just click on without thinking. It may work better for people to have the ability to block on the page itself, but after plenty of discussions, I definitely think it would be better to at least put it in a drop menu so it isn't sitting there begging to be pushed.
As for the boxes... most of these options are already used. Since I hadn't used the block feature before, I was unsure as to what it does. In my revision, I'm omitting option #1 because for people who post stolen art and stuff that violates dA policy, that option would prevent their work from being viewed and therefore reported. My thinking was the same as yours: it would be AWESOME to not have to see that smut (if they're a "porn artist," which is a huge oxymoron) but at the same time, it would basically put the thief/smut-maker in a protected bubble and the stolen art/smut couldn't be removed.
For #2, I'm changing that to an automatic hide, rather than to have it removed. I know for myself that for some of the stuff people say, seeing it once is enough. There's alot of stuff posted on this submission that's basically an attempt to trash my reputation, which is why you see so many hidden posts. There's also alot of whining about, and attempting to exploit, other people. Aside from irrelevant conversations, the stuff that's hidden was totally uncalled for. It wouldn't surprise me if you get a few people talking to you about me, since they didn't take too well to having their cutthroat garbage hidden. It's certainly not a required option to incorporate, and it would probably require a large amount of script-writing. That particular option is something of a convenience feature, if it's even plausible.
#3 is being omitted as well, because someone told me the forums have tons of issues and I don't want to compound those. That would probably be a nightmare.
#4 is already used so I'm omitting that as well.
#5 is being changed. Group blocking takes care of the contribution part of the issue. I've changed it to "prevent this user from joining groups I have founded." I revised that as well, because I was going to have it prevent them from joining "groups in which I'm an administrator," but that turned out to be much too chaotic. From what I've been told, blocked users (blocked by individuals) can join the blocker's groups and trash them in there, as well as steal artwork. Or they can join, trash, then leave. I figured it would be nice to be able to prevent them from joining in the first place, or even to disallow access to the group page altogether. That might be hard to script too, but it's a choice.
I got rid of #6 as well, since group blocking does that; 7 was removed since it's already incorporated.
I like the thoroughness this provides; it would be nice to have more options, or just ways to make it an easier process. I have such a hard time remembering who I'm about to block, and it's pretty sad. I'll repeat the name to myself over and over, get to my block list, and totally space it.
π: 0 β©: 1
This is a DD because of concept; deviant-related is awarded, for the most for the idea, ergo for concept. I found it to be an excellent idea. I have trolls that like to follow me and complain about my DDs, my blogs on CR and never miss a chance to beat me down. The ideas outlined in this, would at least assist me, along with the 15 groups I admin between my two sites, to not have to continually deal with trolls. There is one that blocked both my sites first, then decided to go around to every group I was a member of and tell them I was an art thief because I posted my vacation pictures of Disney World. It would be nice to have some control over such trolls.
Blocking a deviant removes them from the watch list, but they can join groups and anything they may have faved remains a fave. The only thing blocking does is not commenting on that site. Blocked deviants are free to wander around dA and talk smack in a variety of ways. It is hurtful and annoying.
So, it is the concept behind this that garnered the DD. Not all DDs will be to your liking. They certainly are not to mine; however, if you would like to suggest some DDs you WOULD like, just send them to me in a note.
π: 0 β©: 1
I see. I thought DDs went to good art.
Not good concepts. I guess the whole DD thing really went to the dogs... Sigh.
π: 0 β©: 2
DDs were never worth jackshit to begin with.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
dA-related has ALWAYS been about concept and ideas. That is why the category is called dA-related. It can be about how to improve the site, deviant IDs or icons, stamps and dA-related tutorials. For other galleries, such as stock, DDs can be given for any type of Tutorials because those fall under the resources gallery. Each gallery has the opportunity for DDs, so there will be literature, typography, advertising and other options outside of traditional or digital art.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's a wonderful question and I'm afraid I have no idea why. I don't think it should be and I'm tempted to just delete it. It wasn't submitted to any groups and I don't know how the dude found it or why he suggested it. I was hoping to get suggestions on how to improve it but wasn't getting that, and was going to delete it when I saw it was a DD.
π: 0 β©: 2
I mean, it's a great idea and vision and what not. It seems we are equally as stumped.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah... that's why I'd like to get input on how to improve it. So far, most of what I've been told is how bad it is, but haven't really received much in the way of changing it.
π: 0 β©: 1
What sort of things are you looking to be changed?
π: 0 β©: 1
Anything that's not plausible, or that's already been implemented. I'd like to redo the options list.
π: 0 β©: 0
Now, no offense to you, but Iβve sworn that Iβve seen this suggestion before. I mean, I could just be thinking back onto the various single suggestions, in the suggestion forum, which had similar ideals, but who knows. But really, besides the similarities, I do have to say I cannot see this being helpful for the site at all.
First off, letβs talk about your βremove Deviant from my watch-listβ-idea.
That idea is already implemented in the current block-list feature. You can easily block some and have them removed from your watch-list, or, you know, you can remove them manually yourself by going into your watch-list, or their profile, and deselecting them.
Second, the βRemove this user from groups Iβve founded,β seems a tad overboard. Seriously, if you have them blocked, then they cannot comment to you and you cannot comment to them. If they pose such a threat to you, then you can easily block them from the group manually. Again, this is such a simple and menial taskβ¦ I just canβt see why you arenβt able to do it yourself.
Third, see the βSecond.β A simple block is enough. Itβs just another silly idea, which has been denied before.
Fourth, see my first point. Itβs not that hard to block them.
Fifth is just like my fourth point.
Sixth, thatβs a little different. You can manually hide their comments yourself. It isnβt that hard really.
As for number seven, that is something that has been suggested forever on dA. I doubt itβll be made.
Really, all this is, like I said, is nothing more than a conglomerate of previously mentioned ideas and suggestions from the suggestions forum, in my eyes.
π: 0 β©: 1
First off, remove the forum thing. We already have problems with that.
Second, what about those who steal art or have violations in their gallery.
π: 0 β©: 1
I haven't been on the forums myself, I just used it as an example. That can definitely be omitted tho. Do you think stolen art or violations can be reported by this feature? That may be something to include if you think it's possible.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, there are people who report long time violators. If they get blocked, they can't get to the page to make sure the gallery is there.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh ok... I know that with the current block system, you can still access each other's page but just can't communicate. That could definitely stay the same for the idea.
π: 0 β©: 1
.... This is what the block list do currently
π: 0 β©: 2
Not true. Blocking a deviant will remove that deviant from the watch, but it will not remove faves the deviant may have made nor does it stop him/her from joining groups, commenting in the groups and commenting on other deviant sites about the person that did the blocking. The system needs to improve. This is why this was made a DD. It was recommended by =TimberClipse in conjunction with #DevNews , and I happened to agree with the concept behind the dA-related, visual suggestion.
π: 0 β©: 0
I thought group blocking was separate?
π: 0 β©: 3
Hidden by Owner
π: 0 β©: 1
Mmmm... Don't remember
I have never blocked anyone but I have seen myself being blocked of groups people who blocked me owns so I assumed it worked that way.
Lol so they bothered to block me from all their groups
π: 0 β©: 1
I like the concept, but with all of these terms it seems like a lot of abuse and necessary bullying could come of this, but I definitely support the idea (:
π: 0 β©: 1
Same with the way it is now.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>