LJ once again commits a FAIL
Dec. 15th, 2009 06:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altivoGender will now be a required selection on the profile, and the only options will be "male" and "female".
See discussion here. Even if you personally don't care about this issue, I urge you to express solidarity with those who do care. Go to your Edit Profile page and change your gender to "Unspecified". You will only be able to do this now, before they push the code change. Then go to LJ Feedback and register a POLITE objection to the policy. Remember that the people who read feedback are NOT the people who make these stupid decisions.
The only reason I can imagine for this sudden change is a desire to target users with "gender specific" advertising. Regardless of gender, this is likely to be no more acceptable than pouring a stream of raw sewage on your head.
[EDIT: LJ has declared that this was all an error and will not be pushed to production. While I believe that they will not push it to production, possibly as a result of the furor it caused, I still consider it proof of poor management and/or bad policy on their part. See discussions below if you are interested. This wasn't a "false alarm" by any means, and I thank those who responded quickly.]
See discussion here. Even if you personally don't care about this issue, I urge you to express solidarity with those who do care. Go to your Edit Profile page and change your gender to "Unspecified". You will only be able to do this now, before they push the code change. Then go to LJ Feedback and register a POLITE objection to the policy. Remember that the people who read feedback are NOT the people who make these stupid decisions.
The only reason I can imagine for this sudden change is a desire to target users with "gender specific" advertising. Regardless of gender, this is likely to be no more acceptable than pouring a stream of raw sewage on your head.
[EDIT: LJ has declared that this was all an error and will not be pushed to production. While I believe that they will not push it to production, possibly as a result of the furor it caused, I still consider it proof of poor management and/or bad policy on their part. See discussions below if you are interested. This wasn't a "false alarm" by any means, and I thank those who responded quickly.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 01:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 01:29 pm (UTC)Such a concept, if it were only caught in "beta test" implies that policy is being set/proposed/generated by coders rather than by analysts who understand the user community and their concerns and interests. That's still horribly wrong and deserves strong protest.
My suspicion is that the sudden flood of complaints produced an actual change in direction (for the moment) and thus the back-pedaling and denials. You don't "test" policy by putting it into beta code.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 02:19 pm (UTC)(I do not work for LJ. Just in general)
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:21 pm (UTC)However, I consider the fact that something like this got even as far as beta to be a flaw in LJ's management. Either the coder was given a faulty or vague specification, or they were not being adequately checked. Something of this sort never should have gotten as far as it did. I still consider that to be a considerable failure on LJ's part, and a sign that (as we all know) they are not as thoughtful about their decisions and practices as they should be.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:24 pm (UTC)Adding a gender field to signup and gender security options to signup and profile management is all that changelong had, aside from one method called during signup only that only checked for male or female. I'm calling that an oops, considering the same coder also only put in male or female on the signup page (it was all he had considered), but left unspecified as a valid option on the profile management page (it wasn't something he had to add or modify, since gender selection was already implemented there).
You treat code as if it's always perfect and does exactly what it's supposed to do. Whether it's BOINC, WCG, Linux, Windows, or LJ, you expect code to be fully tested and bug-free by the time it gets within your view. So naturally you expect code to reflect policy, also fully gelled and ready for implementation. You may believe this if you wish, but I don't. Code has bugs, and some seem so natural to the coders responsible, the bugs aren't actually caught until late in the cycle. Hell, even a software development course taught me that. I was catching and fixing bugs right up to deadline that seemed perfectly natural to everybody else.
I tell you what. You point me at any sort of new policy announced for LJ that makes gender mandatory and male/female only, and I'll join you in creating pushback. Until then, I think it's a coding error, not a harbinger of big bad LJ coming to put the hammer down on the poor gender-Unspecifieds.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:39 pm (UTC)I worked in development for years, on real products with real customers. I even worked in quality control for a number of years, where all we did was check for bugs and errors to keep them from reaching the customers.
My definition of "beta" and the one I have always seen in the past, is code that is ready to be pushed to a sampling of real customers for them to try out and return their comments and criticisms. In my opinion, this kind of thing is not beta code unless the policy actually has been determined. If no such policy was intended, then I contend that LJ's management is bad. But I already thought that so no surprise there.
In the past, LJ management has made some very stupid moves without testing the temperature of user reaction. This could easily have been yet another of those. They have made it clear that they need a smack of the clue-by-four early and often, and I will continue to apply that device when I deem it necessary.
This is also why I have been running parallel entries over on Dreamwidth, where the policy management is far more intelligent and keyed to the actual users, rather than to commercial potential and profit motives.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 06:21 pm (UTC)How is DW? The first I heard of it, the folks with it sounded a bit too much like GJ did: all idealism and not much practicality. Thus I have so far avoided it.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 06:44 pm (UTC)I've been on Dreamwidth for eight months now, pretty much since its inception, and I have no complaints at all about their management or policy. Not surprising, I guess, since DW was founded by people who left LJ partly in disgust over management policies and attitudes that I also find aggravating. Some may also have been "laid off" in one of the takeovers, I suppose. Their technical understanding of the LJ code base is excellent, and I suspect some of them were among the original developers. If they are having financial issues, they aren't admitting it yet. With respect to their technical management of the site and their policy decisions, so far I find them either highly agreeable to me or at least tolerable.
They also make simulcasting easy. You set an option on DW, and by default everything you post there gets posted to LJ as well. The moods, the icon choices, all the usual features carry right over. They support OpenID, too, so it's relatively easy to comment on LJ with a DW account or vice versa.
DW has a feature that will import all your past LJ posts into DW as well, though I haven't tried that yet. For one thing, it can't very well bring all the comments along, and those are a significant part of the whole in my opinion.
The only Dreamwidth issue I have right now isn't their fault. It's Flickr, who refuse so far to support blogging directly to Dreamwidth with photo images even though they do support LJ. The code is identical, all they have to do is add support for the different URL, but so far their attitude seems to be that they "can't be bothered."
Go, Alt!
Date: 2009-12-22 09:14 pm (UTC)While this is a non-issue for me, I can respect your viewpoint & furthermore think you are probably right in regards towards the current nature of the changes that have occured... as long as there is sufficient negative responses, You'll likely get more backpedlaing & the like... but once it goes away, the push will resume.
Personally, I don't get all that reactionary with the labels others throw around, but I understand what you're getting at, and can respect your call to action- and furthermore, applaud you for doing what you can to rally others to the cause- so, kudos. I've always believed that if something means anything to you, you should do all you can in that direction.
Hmm... I feel I could say more on this topic after further consideration... so, until then... *waves*
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 01:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 02:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:13 pm (UTC)Thank you for taking the time to contact us with your concerns. We understand that gender is not binary, and intend to respect that understanding for our users.
At this time, the code you reference is not live on the site, and will not become so in the future. We know that you, and many other users, have serious concerns about any requirement to specify gender, so we'd like to take a moment to explain events and our position further.
The intention of this code was to change the sign-up process to include a field for the selection of gender; that the code would completely disable the "Unspecified" option at the same time was deemed unacceptable. While the code in question had gone to our beta (testing) server, it had not gone to our production server, and will not do so due to this problem. Furthermore, we'd like to clarify that code posted to the changelog community is not always final, as such code must then go through the beta testing process and can often be changed before actual implementation.
Additionally, some erroneous information has been spread regarding the potential public display of the gender field. We would like to clarify that gender is not currently publicly displayed on the profile, nor anywhere else on the site, and there are no plans to change this behavior.
Regards,
LiveJournal Community Care Team
I can totally see code being pushed to beta in order to test things out. What's more, I find it perfectly credible that a coder could have been building a new link in the signup form for gender, and naturally thought to test whether the returned result was valid. If said coder was of a more limited mindset, the natural result would be testing for Male/Female only.
I would do the same thing. Not out of any malicious desire, just out of ingrained cultural mindset oops.
My guess is, when it got pushed to testing for the signup form's sake, the other issue of being forced to choose one of such a limited set of options was only then noticed. It would be a trivial change to include "Unspecified" as a valid and checked-for result. Further, if you examine the full changelog, you'll notice that the "Unspecified" option is STILL PRESENT in the profile management page.
Modified: trunk/htdocs/manage/profile/index.bml =================================================================== --- trunk/htdocs/manage/profile/index.bml 2009-12-09 13:33:20 UTC (rev 16013) +++ trunk/htdocs/manage/profile/index.bml 2009-12-10 04:49:56 UTC (rev 16014) @@ -153,6 +153,23 @@ $ret .= "<tr><td>$ML{'.fn.gender'}</td><td>"; $ret .= LJ::html_select({ 'name' => 'gender', 'selected' => $u->{'gender'} }, 'U' => $ML{'.gender.unspecified'}, 'M' => $ML{'.gender.male'}, 'F' => $ML{'.gender.female'} );That's right, nothing changed here except the addition of options to show or hide your gender from various levels of users.
I don't think this is a case of coders setting policy, nor do I think this is some grand conspiracy to force people into specifying gender. I find it perfectly plausible that it was an error, particularly since the only modified code was in and related to the signup page, leaving the regular profile management stuff untouched. I mean, it was right above the field where they added the gender security options, they couldn't have missed it if they were intending to change it. The only place a forced selection is found is in gender_check, and that looks like the coder simply didn't think to check for anything other than male or female. Look at the changelog yourself! The only other things added or removed relate to adding that gender security option, and providing the gender box on the signup form.
As always, please correct me if I am wrong.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:30 pm (UTC)You don't test potential policy changes by putting them into beta. By doing so, you risk just the sort of response that this apparently earned them. Hopefully they will learn from it, though I rather doubt they will. Since LJ went commercial, any sense of understanding of the user base seems to have totally evaporated.
Specifications should be written so as to prevent this sort of error. Code should be vetted by analysts who understand the policy issues and potential pitfalls, well before it goes to beta testing. In the years I spent in development, that was how we did it. Genuine bugs got into the beta and sometimes farther, but policy or functional changes by coding slip up never got that far.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 03:44 pm (UTC)I'm aware that the careful standards we used in that era have often been seriously eroded by now, but I find that unacceptable. Microsoft's delivery of faulty "products" such as Windows ME and Windows Vista have shown the pitfalls, though I gather they aren't learning much from it.
Your own comments on managers who expect to rush or omit product testing cycles only serve to verify my poor opinion of the state into which the industry has fallen.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 05:16 pm (UTC)I have never met a code analyst who reads code and vets it before it goes to testing. Any half-decent coder can vet their own code for obvious, glaring errors. The closest thing I've heard of is some types of rapid-development teams, where two coders take half-hour turns coding / watching over the other's shoulder for errors.
If ever it happened the way you say, it doesn't any more. It's a new world, with new ways of doing things. Perhaps the old ways were better. I don't think the new ways are necessarily better, either. Just different.
Definitions change. Many products have a much more extended beta phase, and it's now used for field-testing software, not just a final verification by the users.
Apply the clue-by-four when you feel you must. In cases where I don't think it need be applied, I will counter-react to the same degree that I feel you have overreacted, therefore attempting to return the system to the correct position by counteracting overreactions.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 05:25 pm (UTC)I do not find it difficult to believe that a Russian coder or even manager would fail to perceive the error in the binary gender assumption. I do find it shocking that a website so heavily populated by English speakers would have been expected to take this affront without fuss, though.
We know that LJ is managed by blockheads, and has been ever since it was sold to SixApart. Nothing has improved since then, in my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 08:15 pm (UTC)Okay, let's say it was a failure of the coder or manager to perceive the error. Okay, so let's make them aware of the error. This was done quite adequately by the folks on the changelog page, I thought.
If you felt the need, you could even encourage people to feedback on the issue. I think telling people to change their gender to "Unspecified" as a show of solidarity is way overestimating any potential "threat", and backing it up with comparisons of sewage and warnings of gender-specific ads, is completely unnecessary.
For one thing, so what if they advertise based on gender? If people have a problem with advertising, they're likely to go away from LJ anyways. If they don't have a problem with advertising, why would they have an issue with gender-specific advertising? Biiiiiiiiiig shrug.
If anything, I'd say the bigger issue was that they didn't include other gender choices. Hell, who cares if it's mandatory, as long as you can answer "Unspecified"? For that matter, who gives a rat's ass about it if you have to choose male or female on signup, and can just change it back to unspecified once you create your account? It would be inconvenient and strange, but it would be a valid workaround. And I remind you that these changes did not affect the profile management page's choice of genders, so that would still work.
So yeah sure, it was a goof, whether by the manager or the coder or who-the-hell-ever. Waaah, it'll be required, waaaah, show solidarity, waaaah, you can only make the change now, waaaaah, gender specific advertising is raw sewage poured on your head? Completely overblown.
You know what I would have said? "It looks like LJ is considering a change to make gender selection male-or-female only. I think this is inconsiderate and inappropriate, because there are many who choose not to place themselves in either category. At the very least, they should maintain' Unspecified' as a choice, particularly for those who don't feel the need to give out this information. Go here to give LJ some feedback on the issue, but stay polite." Tells the story, calls for action, doesn't go crazy.
Save the emotional reactionary language for issues that truly require it, please. I can't recall the number of times I've asked this of Finrod. Surprisingly, on issues of code and LJ in particular, it seems I must ask the same of you. We KNOW Finrod thinks pro-choicers are baby killers and of the same moral caliber as Nazis running concentration camps. (I'm very loosely paraphrasing.) Similarly, I KNOW you harbor extreme dislike for LJ and the people running it, as well as somewhat less-extreme dislike for people who allow buggy code to escape into the world at large. You needn't keep slamming them over and over, much as it may be fun sport for you. If you hate it that much, go stay over at Dreamwidth, yes?
More annoying still, at least to me, is that you continually keep agitating for people to dump LJ and go elsewhere. I feel like I'm going to be the only one left here, just because I'm the only one that doesn't have a big problem with Russians or the occasional faulty bit of code or policy. Am I going to be left behind again, or forced to move over as the agitators pull everybody worth talking to with them? That annoys me.
Bah, now I'm just ranting in general. I'll shut up now, sorry.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 08:40 pm (UTC)Yes, I do believe LJ management has been the pits ever since SixApart took over, and I don't see much hope of improvement. I don't think I did any agitating for people to move to Dreamwidth here, beyond answering
I really do think the gender question being mandatory is wrong. Just plain wrong, because there is no justification for asking it unless they plan on gender-specific advertising. Gender-specific advertising, in turn, really does offend me a great deal, both because it makes false assumptions about gender role and interests, and because it tends to enforce certain social attitudes about the same. And yes, those are hot button issues for me. I've been hounded by them all my life, sometimes to the point of abuse.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 09:35 pm (UTC)Gender-specific advertising I don't care so much about, because I don't pay any attention to advertising in the first place. I can't generally be bothered to block it, but it generally barely even registers with me. Since I don't pay attention to it, I don't care what assumptions it makes. That it enforces social attitudes is something I don't know. Since I'm perfectly capable of smashing people's faces into their preconceived notions, and rather enjoy doing so.
Still, I hear that you've had difficult times with such things, so I'll do my best to remember and be considerate of this fact. *hugs*
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 05:26 pm (UTC)You say the purpose of it is to target people with gender specific advertisement but I don't even get any advertisement from LJ. Of course, I have a paid account.
Upon looking at the discussion, it seems the uproar is centered around the fact that the mandatory gender requirement is discriminatory against those who are confused about their gender identity. I still don't see what the problem is. Even transgendered or transsexual people identify with a single gender, it's just the opposite gender of the one they were born as. Granted, if you one of the extremely rare people born with a genetic condition where you are not distinctly male or female, you're out of luck.
I know my position on this topic is not popular around here but I believe that your gender or sex is determined by your genetics. If you are born with an XY chromosome, you are biologically a male no matter how much you may feel like a female and visa verse. You can mutilate your genitals or alter your physical appearance but you cannot alter your genetic structure.
Moreover, what LJ is doing is not as nearly as malicious as what the FA administrators are doing, going out of their way to selectively target people based on a specific sexual orientation they do not approve of and changing the rules so that they prevent said sexual minority from even expressing related thoughts with the threat of banishment.
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 06:55 pm (UTC)LJ does push advertisement on people who don't have paid accounts and don't use ad blocking software. The fact that you are immune to it doesn't make it a non-issue. Facebook has in the past abused gender information precisely for the purpose of pushing gender related ads at subscribers, which was quite disgusting. Women received a lot of pushy ads about dieting and personal appearance products such as makeup, while men got ads for matchmaker and even soft porn sites. This bugs me even though I use an ad blocker and never see the ads on either LJ or Facebook. Sex role enforcement or reinforcement through media or advertising is highly offensive to me.
While you may be scientifically correct about the physical nature of gender, many of us do not consider our genetic details to be anyone's business but our own. Certainly they should not enter into what is essentially a business relationship that has nothing to do with sex or child bearing.
Thanks just the same.
Date: 2009-12-22 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 07:24 pm (UTC)====
Dear LJ,
I am dismayed to hear that you intend to force people to indicate their gender on their profiles, and disappointed that such a normally progressive venue as LJ would force the Male/Female duality on its users. Many people who self-identify as both, neither, or in transition will feel just that little bit more disenfranchised, which is particularly sad when dealing with a service that is so patently useful as a tool for self-expression and sharing one's experiences.
I hope you will reconsider the choices available in people's profiles and offer more choices than two. I believe it would offer more comfort than distress to your users, and in the end isn't that the best thing for the communities you serve?
Thanks for listening, and happy holidays.
Light and laughter,
SongCoyote
====
Now that I've seen other responses I expect to get the same sort of thing (if I'm responded to at all, given the implication of multiple e-mails received). In the end I don't care how they explain it to themselves or others (though I'd prefer direct honesty) so long as they understand that Mistakes Were Made, regardless of by whom.
And in other news: hi, how are ya! :)
Light and laughter,
SongCoyote
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 07:44 pm (UTC)Meanwhile, my gender is "undecided" and now will probably stay that way. XD
I am cold, but mostly happy at the moment, and happier for having heard from you. *hugs*
no subject
Date: 2009-12-15 09:29 pm (UTC)I got the canned response a short bit ago, as expected. Whatever; so long as the binary code never makes it live :)
It's been chilly and rainy here for the past few days (though of course this is only relative; it's hardly what you would call cold where you live!) but I've managed to stay of good cheer anyway. I love the holiday season, which for me starts in late October and goes more or less through early March for various reasons.
I hope your holidays are shaping up to be fun and warm and happy, and that the new year treats you even better. Drop me an e-mail some time and we can chat about more specifics, if you like. I always love to hear from you.
Maybe someday we can meet; I'd still like to, even if just at a con.
Light and laughter,
SongCoyote