Difference between revisions of "User relationships"

From Dreamwidth Notes
Jump to: navigation, search
(more consistent descriptions, room for commentary)
(XAYA)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 
== Commentary on specific patterns, pre-launch ==
 
== Commentary on specific patterns, pre-launch ==
 +
 +
Right now, this is speculation.
  
 
=== XSYS ===
 
=== XSYS ===
Line 34: Line 36:
 
<em>Mutual subscriptions; X and Y subscribe to each other but do not give each other access.</em>
 
<em>Mutual subscriptions; X and Y subscribe to each other but do not give each other access.</em>
  
This should be a decently common pattern; many people might want to watch and read each other's public material, but not go into the locked material.
+
This should be a decently common pattern; many people might want to watch and read each other's public content, but not go into the locked content.
  
 
=== XAYS ===
 
=== XAYS ===
Line 40: Line 42:
 
<em>X gives access to Y and Y subscribes to X, but Y does not give X access.</em>
 
<em>X gives access to Y and Y subscribes to X, but Y does not give X access.</em>
  
An instance of this usage pattern would be X as a reader of author Y's content.  Author Y keeps all of their content locked from the general public, but gives access to interested readers.  However, Author Y doesn't want to read everyone who is reading them.
+
An instance of this usage pattern would be Y as a reader of author X's content.  Author X keeps all of their content locked from the general public, but gives access to interested readers.  However, Author X doesn't want to read everyone who is reading them, so they don't actually subscribe to Reader Y.
  
 
=== XBYS ===
 
=== XBYS ===
Line 46: Line 48:
 
<em>X subscribes and gives access to Y, but Y only subscribes to X.</em>
 
<em>X subscribes and gives access to Y, but Y only subscribes to X.</em>
  
This could be an effect of different usage or comfort levels for locked content between two users.  X might be more willing to share their locked content than Y.  Y might reserve locked content access to only a given few.
+
This could be an effect of different usage or comfort levels for locked content between two users.  X might be more willing to share their locked content than Y.  Y might reserve locked content access to only a given few, for a variety of reasons.
  
 
=== XNYS ===
 
=== XNYS ===
Line 52: Line 54:
 
<em>X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes to X.</em>
 
<em>X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes to X.</em>
  
Popular writers could have many instances of this pattern: they write interesting material that Y wants to read, but X isn't a reader of Y.  X only wants to read Y, however, not give Y access to their locked content. This is probably the pattern that drove the split from friends into subscribe and access.
+
Popular journals could have many instances of this pattern: X writes interesting material that Y wants to read, but X isn't a reader of Y.  Y only wants to read X, however, not give X access to their locked content. This is probably the pattern that drove the split from friends into subscribe and access.
  
 
=== XSYA ===
 
=== XSYA ===
Line 63: Line 65:
  
 
<em>Mutual access; X and Y give each other access, but neither subscribes to the other.</em>
 
<em>Mutual access; X and Y give each other access, but neither subscribes to the other.</em>
 +
 +
Probably pretty rare.
  
 
=== XBYA ===
 
=== XBYA ===
Line 68: Line 72:
 
<em>X subscribes to Y and gives them access, but Y only gives access to X.</em>
 
<em>X subscribes to Y and gives them access, but Y only gives access to X.</em>
  
Pattern might occur when somebody does a "friends cut" when previously mutual friends, where they don't care as much about who is reading their locked content as much as not having as much content to read.  In this instance, Y is doing the cut down, while X still reads and gives access to Y.  
+
Pattern might occur when somebody does a "friends cut" with previously XBYB mutual friends, where Y doesn't care as much about who is reading their locked content as much as having less content to read.  In this instance, Y is doing the cut down, while X still subscribes and gives access to Y.  
  
 
=== XNYA ===
 
=== XNYA ===
Line 118: Line 122:
 
<em>X and Y have no direct connections.</em>
 
<em>X and Y have no direct connections.</em>
  
At least...no unCOVERT connections.
+
At least...no OVERT connections.
  
 
== LJ Relationship Table ==
 
== LJ Relationship Table ==
Line 130: Line 134:
 
<th>Friend</th>
 
<th>Friend</th>
 
<td valign="top"><div style="float: right; font-style: italic; font-size: small;">XFYF</div>X and Y have friended each other.</td>
 
<td valign="top"><div style="float: right; font-style: italic; font-size: small;">XFYF</div>X and Y have friended each other.</td>
<td valign="top"><div style="float: right; font-style: italic; font-size: small;">XNYF</div>X is not friends with Y, but Y has friended X.</td></tr>
+
<td valign="top"><div style="float: right; font-style: italic; font-size: small;">XNYF</div>X has not friended Y, but Y has friended X.</td></tr>
 
<tr><th>Not Friend</th>
 
<tr><th>Not Friend</th>
 
<td valign="top"><div style="float: right; font-style: italic; font-size: small;">XFYN</div>X has friended Y, but Y has not friended X.</td>
 
<td valign="top"><div style="float: right; font-style: italic; font-size: small;">XFYN</div>X has friended Y, but Y has not friended X.</td>

Latest revision as of 12:24, 7 April 2009

The user being considered here is User X. User Y is someone who User X has some kind of relationship to--note that this can include things like User Y subscribing to X, but X has nothing to do with them.

DW Relationship Table

User X
SubscribeAccessBothNeither
User YSubscribe
XSYS
Mutual subscriptions; X and Y subscribe to each other but do not give each other access.
XAYS
X gives access to Y and Y subscribes to X, but Y does not give X access.
XBYS
X subscribes and gives access to Y, but Y only subscribes to X.
XNYS
X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes to X.
Access
XSYA
X subscribes to Y, and Y gives access to X, but Y does not subscribe to X.
XAYA
Mutual access; X and Y give each other access, but neither subscribes to the other.
XBYA
X subscribes to Y and gives them access, but Y only gives access to X.
XNYA
X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y gives access to X.
Both
XSYB
X only subscribes to Y, while Y subscribes and gives access to X.
XAYB
X only gives access to Y, while Y subscribes and gives access to X.
XBYB
X and Y both subscribe and give access to each other. The equivalent of friending on LJ.
XNYB
X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes and gives access to X.
Neither
XSYN
X subscribes to Y, while Y doesn't subscribe or give access to X.
XAYN
X gives access to Y, while Y doesn't subscribe or give access to X.
XBYN
X both subscribes and gives access to Y, while Y doesn't subscribe or give access to X.
XNYN
X and Y have no direct connections.

Commentary on specific patterns, pre-launch

Right now, this is speculation.

XSYS

Mutual subscriptions; X and Y subscribe to each other but do not give each other access.

This should be a decently common pattern; many people might want to watch and read each other's public content, but not go into the locked content.

XAYS

X gives access to Y and Y subscribes to X, but Y does not give X access.

An instance of this usage pattern would be Y as a reader of author X's content. Author X keeps all of their content locked from the general public, but gives access to interested readers. However, Author X doesn't want to read everyone who is reading them, so they don't actually subscribe to Reader Y.

XBYS

X subscribes and gives access to Y, but Y only subscribes to X.

This could be an effect of different usage or comfort levels for locked content between two users. X might be more willing to share their locked content than Y. Y might reserve locked content access to only a given few, for a variety of reasons.

XNYS

X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes to X.

Popular journals could have many instances of this pattern: X writes interesting material that Y wants to read, but X isn't a reader of Y. Y only wants to read X, however, not give X access to their locked content. This is probably the pattern that drove the split from friends into subscribe and access.

XSYA

X subscribes to Y, and Y gives access to X, but Y does not subscribe to X.

Like XAYS, but in reverse.

XAYA

Mutual access; X and Y give each other access, but neither subscribes to the other.

Probably pretty rare.

XBYA

X subscribes to Y and gives them access, but Y only gives access to X.

Pattern might occur when somebody does a "friends cut" with previously XBYB mutual friends, where Y doesn't care as much about who is reading their locked content as much as having less content to read. In this instance, Y is doing the cut down, while X still subscribes and gives access to Y.

XNYA

X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y gives access to X.

XSYB

X only subscribes to Y, while Y subscribes and gives access to X.

Differing comfort levels or usage of locked content, like XBYS, but in reverse.

XAYB

X only gives access to Y, while Y subscribes and gives access to X.

Just like XBYA, except reversed.

XBYB

X and Y both subscribe and give access to each other. The equivalent of friending on LJ.

Expected to be a very popular pattern, since mutual friending on LJ is the norm.

XNYB

X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes and gives access to X.

XSYN

X doesn't subscribe or give access to Y, but Y subscribes and gives access to X.

Like XNYS, but in reverse.

XAYN

X gives access to Y, while Y doesn't subscribe or give access to X.

Like XNYA, but in reverse.

XBYN

X both subscribes and gives access to Y, while Y doesn't subscribe or give access to X.

Like XNYB, but in reverse.

XNYN

X and Y have no direct connections.

At least...no OVERT connections.

LJ Relationship Table

This is for comparison--relationships on LJ are much simpler!

User X
FriendNot Friend
User Y Friend
XFYF
X and Y have friended each other.
XNYF
X has not friended Y, but Y has friended X.
Not Friend
XFYN
X has friended Y, but Y has not friended X.
XNYN
X and Y have no direct connections.