directory 2.0: what does opt out mean?

(i know what it means, but i think a vast majority of ward members don't)

just a suggestion...the individual tailoring of privacy settings is a wonderful feature. the emphasis on being able to "view" information can be misunderstood. it appears there are a few unintended consequences to work out. here are a couple i've noticed:

- a ward member may want to "hide" an email address from ward members in general, without realizing that doing so is the same as electing "i do not want to receive any emails from any ward organization on any topic, EVER" (including emergency communications), and so they wonder why they never get any of the ward emails that are sent out.

- we've also just experienced exactly the reverse case. a member did not want to be contacted by email by anyone, and so opted out and made the profile private. when the ward executive secretary sent out a broadcast email (about daylight savings time, no less) the member was upset that the settings were not honored (because of the exec sec's calling, which appears to auto-include opt-outs)

anyway, on the screen to edit profiles, it would be helpful to change some of the verbage from someone being able to "view" your email address to an election of whether or not you wanted to _receive_ emails from ward leaders or organizations.

I think this is a difficult issue to address. Placing too much information on the screen clutters it up and then few will read it when it gets cluttered. Currently there is a "Learn More" link that opens the wiki article "Data privacy settings in Directory". It explains a lot but does not address those issues in post #1. Fortunately the wiki article is easily edited to adequately address the ramifications of each visibility setting to include what happens for e-mail capabilities when "Private - Leadership Only" is selected.

geowizrd wrote:[W]hen the ward executive secretary sent out a broadcast email (about daylight savings time, no less) the member was upset that the settings were not honored (because of the exec sec's calling, which appears to auto-include opt-outs)

I think in this case the executive secretary should have considered that the daylight savings message was not a critical message and should not have included those who had set their visibility to private. The leaders that can send messages to everyone, including those who have set e-mail visibility to private, should be sensitive to those settings. Only critical information that must reach each member should be sent this way. If a member does not want any e-mail messages they should not list their e-mail address. After all, it is optional.

After looking closely at the pop-up when "edit" is clicked for any e-mail address there is an explanation in gray text for each visibility option at the bottom of the pop-up. I think that geowizrd's concern about not explaining the consequences for e-mail visibility settings can be further explained. I would suggest putting further information for e-mail visibility settings such as for "Private - Leadership Only" to explain that no only can leaders see the e-mail address but some of those leaders can include that e-mail address in a broadcast message.

Why certain leaders have the capability to include private e-mail addresses in broadcast messages could be explained in the wiki article. Since I do not know who has that capability I will not edit the wiki article.

Thanks for raising this issue. I hadn't considered the e-mail implications for this privacy setting. It seems that this is how it works:
* Even if your profile is private, you will still receive broadcast communications sent from leaders through the Send a Message feature in Leader Resources. This messaging feature does not tie in with privacy settings.
* If your profile is private, you will not appear in calendar lists, so no one will be able to add you as a calendar editor or administrator.
* If your profile is set to Ward, you will not appear in lists for stake calendars, so no one will be able to add you as a stake calendar editor or administrator.
* If you want to not receive communications from the Send a Message feature, you should remove your e-mail address from your profile.

Does this seem correct? If so, I'll update the wiki page with this information.

johnsonth wrote:Does this seem correct? If so, I'll update the wiki page with this information.

By "correct" I assume you mean "does that match your observation".

If you're asking "is that the way it should work", I'd question if privacy settings should affect the calendar settings. Particularly if the person attempting to add them is a stake or ward leader (who would be able to see them anyway).

my original comment was about the "email all <organization>" feature available to all ward members WITHIN the directory app, not about the "send a message" function available in leader/clerk resources (i haven't really checked on what happens with "send a message"). apparently the two are not interconnected, according to this post:

For clarity's sake, there is no relation between the messaging app (referenced in this thread) and the directory app. They run on separate servers and don't share any common code. They don't talk to each other in any way. Directory does not support any messaging services, it just provides email addresses. Emails must be sent from the users mail client. -- jdcr256 December 28th, 2011 10:30 AM

in any event, even selecting "private - leadership only" visibility doesn't really communicate the effect, since the leadership referred to is only the bishopric and clerks, while most ward members would be thinking "ward council". much of the use would be by relief society, young women, and primary presidency presidencies (not to mention cub scout leaders), eq presidencies, and hp groups, who aren't included in this narrow definition of leadership. it might be clearer to say "private-bishopric/clerks only".

again, i'm just suggesting that in the long run, there are really two important but separate functions being handled by a single "visibility" setting: 1- can an individual ward member see me in the ward directory and 2- do i want to receive emails from ward organizations to stay in touch with events or not? my sense is that many members are choosing "no" to #1 while still expecting "yes" to #2, not realizing that isn't possible.

geowizrd wrote:again, i'm just suggesting that in the long run, there are really two important but separate functions being handled by a single "visibility" setting: 1- can an individual ward member see me in the ward directory and 2- do i want to receive emails from ward organizations to stay in touch with events or not? my sense is that many members are choosing "no" to #1 while still expecting "yes" to #2, not realizing that isn't possible.

You are right in that the email address will not be included in the "email all <organization>" link. However, this link is not really functionality for sending a message, all it is is a link that provides an email address to an email client. We can't honor someone's privacy setting by hiding the email address in one part of the UI, only to expose it in another part of the UI.

Other apps like the messaging app referred to in the post you quoted, and the calendar app, actually do have messaging capability - meaning they send a message themselves without relying on the users email client. Therefore it is possible for those apps to send messages to members who have elected to keep their address private, without exposing their address to other members.

johnsonth wrote: * Even if your profile is private, you will still receive broadcast communications sent from leaders through the Send a Message feature in Leader Resources. This messaging feature does not tie in with privacy settings.

I haven't tested it with the v2 privacy settings, but with the older settings marking your email as private did exclude it from the Send a Message feature.

JonesRK wrote:I haven't tested it with the v2 privacy settings, but with the older settings marking your email as private did exclude it from the Send a Message feature.

Yes, I confirm it DID exclude your email from the send a message as well, pre v2. Unsure now. To say "they aren't connected" was addressing code, and did not address the fact that the privacy setting from the directory is directly affecting the emails from other systems, including the calendar, lds.maps and the "send a message" in the leader app.

johnsonth wrote: * If you want to not receive communications from the Send a Message feature, you should remove your e-mail address from your profile.

I am confused as to why somebody would enter their email, and then tell their leaders never to use it, let alone get mad if somebody does. If a member doesn't want emails, tell members not to enter one at all...leave it blank. But, make it clear that if they do want emails, don't make it private!

To be clear, the visibility of an email address and the use of an email address are supposed to be treated as two separate things. Visibility (whether another member can see the email address) is controlled by the privacy settings. The use (whether an application can send an email to a member) should be controlled by a setting in that application. It is possible for applications to send emails without ever exposing those email addresses to other members.

It is possible that some existing apps (like the Send a Message feature for leaders) are not using the privacy settings correctly if they are older apps that pre-date the newer privacy settings. Those apps will be re-done to correctly implement the settings.

As I stated earlier, the directory app does not send messages, it only makes the email address available. For this reason, marking an address private will remove it from the email lists that are provided at the top of the various directory lists.

We will work on cleaning up the documentation around this issue to make it clearer how this is being used.

jdcr256 wrote: The use (whether an application can send an email to a member) should be controlled by a setting in that application.

We will work on cleaning up the documentation around this issue to make it clearer how this is being used.

I would love this to be the case, that each app has it's own options for emailing and privacy. I really wish there was an "emergency option" for leadership that would override any privacy settings.

But for now, it's really confusing to people. For example, here is a true story I quoted from another post on this same topic. It shows the confusion that exists because "visibility" choices in the directory EFFECT "use" in other apps. I've heard before this isn't supposed to be how it works, but IT IS HOW IT HAS WORKED.

A ward member enters his email, but in the directory he makes sure there is no check in the box: "Show in Ward Directory:" He doesn't want his email in the ward directory, for whatever reason, right?

However, he also DOES NOT get the following emails:

• He didn't get the event reminder email, sent from the calendar system, that the calendar editor had modified the ward party scheduled for that night, after a huge windstorm, stating it would be held as planned, encouraging him and all neighbors to come to the church and warm themselves and have a hot meal after working all day long.
• He didn't get the email that Sunday from the stake president, sent to all stake members from the "leader" tools, telling him that all church services except sacrament would be cancelled that day, and he should work with his ward leaders and the community to prepare and help others before another storm.

Even now, in directory v2, with several paragraphs now explaining choices, I'm not sure those "not really into computers" will understand the total effect of OPTING OUT, and I go back to my comment earlier: Why would a member enter an email if they didn't expect, or want, emails for some occasions?

For example, people have told me "it said my leaders can still have my email address if I made it private, but I'm not getting the ward emails from my leaders." That's because a leader can see those emails/phones if they look up that member individually, it's true. But that is far to tedious and time consuming for a leader who is trying to contact his whole ward, especially in an emergency. It just won't happen.

Until the emailing is further perfected, I tell people it's basically all or nothing. If you want emails, enter it and don't make them private. If you don't want emails, take it out of the system all together.

johnsonth wrote: * If your profile is private, you will not appear in calendar lists, so no one will be able to add you as a calendar editor or administrator.
* If your profile is set to Ward, you will not appear in lists for stake calendars, so no one will be able to add you as a stake calendar editor or administrator.

Is this still true if access to calendar administration is calling-based instead of individual-based? For example, if John Doe is the Young Mens President but has set his information to private in the directory, I will not be able to see John Doe to add him as a calendar administrator. But can I add the Young Mens President as a calendar administrator thus still granting John Doe access by virtue of his calling, even though I can't see him?