Kohlmannj's dashboard

evolver replied on September 05, 2008 21:39 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

Although I can see how this new system works for many, it still doesn't work for me or anyone dealing with a mixed-use development with one street address. In my case I live in a large building with retail and restaurants on the ground level. I'd like to be able to check in publicly to a restaurant or gallery but not my actual residence. If we had actual private placemarks, this would work fine. Unfortunately, the setting of one (my residence) overrides another (a store) because we share the same address. I really hope this will be resolved in the future. This would seem a potential hassle for many folks. Thanks for taking the concept this far.

I would still really, really love to be able to toggle the Twitter feed easily *without* having to go into private mode. I don't actually care whether anyone knows where I live; I just don't want it pushed to Twitter every time I return home and dutifully check in. I also may go somewhere like a grocery store where I'd like to check in publicly but don't think the Twitterverse would care. In a perfect BK world, activity at certain placemarks could also be designated as being fed (or not) to Twitter (and perhaps future services), independent of privacy settings.

evolver replied on September 05, 2008 21:39 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

Although I can see how this new system works for many, it still doesn't work for me or anyone dealing with a mixed-use development with one street address. In my case I live in a large building with retail and restaurants on the ground level. I'd like to be able to check in publicly to a restaurant or gallery but not my actual residence. If we had actual private placemarks, this would work fine. Unfortunately, the setting of one (my residence) overrides another (a store) because we share the same address. I really hope this will be resolved in the future. This would seem a potential hassle for many folks. Thanks for taking the concept this far.

I would still really, really love to be able to toggle the Twitter feed easily *without* having to go into private mode. I don't actually care whether anyone knows where I live; I just don't want it pushed to Twitter every time I return home and dutifully check in. I also may go somewhere like a grocery store where I'd like to check in publicly but don't think the Twitterverse would care. In a perfect BK world, activity at certain placemarks could also be designated as being fed (or not) to Twitter (and perhaps future services), independent of privacy settings.

jon replied on August 21, 2008 17:28 to the idea "Automatic Check-ins == You Win" in Brightkite:

i want to be able to go to my Windows Mobile Brightkite app (a native app), and have it guess the vicinity for me.

if it's near a placemark, ask me--"you're close to [placemark name]", want to check in?

if it's not, give a general area name, and ask to check in

if that's not what we want, fall back to a normal search (however you want to implement)

i haven't messed with the Google API, let alone know if there's one for the mobile app, but the hoi polloi may be able to come up with this, now that i think about it--but i'd appreciate it more if it came from brightkite ;-)

j.

A comment on the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

Yes, that's true. It's not the most ideal, given that both services support varying degrees of precision and should be able to work out a way to share them more accurately and transparently, but it's not a bad work-around and isn't without its own benefits. I'll definitely try it out (while waiting for a better solution down the road) :-) . – Thom Watson, on August 16, 2008 00:04

A comment on the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

Yes, that's true. It's not the most ideal, given that both services support varying degrees of precision and should be able to work out a way to share them more accurately and transparently, but it's not a bad work-around and isn't without its own benefits. I'll definitely try it out (while waiting for a better solution down the road) :-) . – Thom Watson, on August 16, 2008 00:04

A comment on the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

One thing you can try, which is actually what I do, is to set the accuracy level of your location yourself when you check in. I'm always in public mode, so whenever I need to check in to a sensitive location, I simply don't check into an exact address. I will check in at street level or using an intersection, then I placemark these locations. I am always in control of what information is shared with FE and Twitter and don't have to rely on the privacy controls. I realize that this is not a desirable option for everyone, so it is only a suggestion, but it could help keep the Brightkite/FE combination useful for you. :) – Lesley, on August 15, 2008 23:59

A comment on the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

One thing you can try, which is actually what I do, is to set the accuracy level of your location yourself when you check in. I'm always in public mode, so whenever I need to check in to a sensitive location, I simply don't check into an exact address. I will check in at street level or using an intersection, then I placemark these locations. I am always in control of what information is shared with FE and Twitter and don't have to rely on the privacy controls. I realize that this is not a desirable option for everyone, so it is only a suggestion, but it could help keep the Brightkite/FE combination useful for you. :) – Lesley, on August 15, 2008 23:59

Thom Watson replied on August 15, 2008 23:41 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

Lesley, I'm glad at least that you're going to make what you do clearer, but it actually means that Brightkite and FE together just isn't useful for me. If I need to go into FE and change my privacy setting there each time I check into an always-private location in Brightkite, when otherwise I want my location in FE to be public, then why should I even use Brightkite? The alternative is that I set FE to show everything at an imprecise level, which also is less than desirable.

Thom Watson replied on August 15, 2008 23:41 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

Lesley, I'm glad at least that you're going to make what you do clearer, but it actually means that Brightkite and FE together just isn't useful for me. If I need to go into FE and change my privacy setting there each time I check into an always-private location in Brightkite, when otherwise I want my location in FE to be public, then why should I even use Brightkite? The alternative is that I set FE to show everything at an imprecise level, which also is less than desirable.

Lesley replied on August 15, 2008 23:16 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

We apologize for any confusion. If you have FE sharing enabled, we will send your exact location to them and then within FE you can modify your privacy settings for what information gets sent out to any other sites. We realize that this is not made very clear in Brightkite, so we will go in and revise it so people know their exact location will be shared when they update.

Lesley replied on August 15, 2008 23:16 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

We apologize for any confusion. If you have FE sharing enabled, we will send your exact location to them and then within FE you can modify your privacy settings for what information gets sent out to any other sites. We realize that this is not made very clear in Brightkite, so we will go in and revise it so people know their exact location will be shared when they update.

cruciformity replied on August 15, 2008 18:44 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

This is back to there simply not being enough options. And maybe its an issue of options on Fire Eagle's end, but the two options it gives when syncing with Fire Eagle are exact location or zipcode (there are more options, but less specific). On the one hand, for Fire Eagle to be useful, they need my exact location, but on the other hand, since I have told BrightKite not to give that information out, they shouldn't give it out. It should look as if I checked in at a zip code or city, not an address. It doesn't seem like that should be to hard.

cruciformity replied on August 15, 2008 18:44 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

This is back to there simply not being enough options. And maybe its an issue of options on Fire Eagle's end, but the two options it gives when syncing with Fire Eagle are exact location or zipcode (there are more options, but less specific). On the one hand, for Fire Eagle to be useful, they need my exact location, but on the other hand, since I have told BrightKite not to give that information out, they shouldn't give it out. It should look as if I checked in at a zip code or city, not an address. It doesn't seem like that should be to hard.

thomwatson replied on August 15, 2008 17:40 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

I've noticed that when checking into a location that's marked "Always Private," like my home address, Bkite appears to send the exact location to Fire Eagle, not the inexact one that it's providing to other Bkite users. FE then displays information about my exact location, and provides it to other apps that poll FE. When I twittered about this last night:

@brightkite If I have a place set to always be private, what info does it provide to Fire Eagle? Looks like it's sending the full location.

Bkite's response was:

@thomwatson FE does not have the granularity of privacy controls available in Bkite. We share the publicly available location with FE.

Wouldn't the "publicly available location" for a location marked as always private be the inexact version? This seems to be what they say they're sending in response to my inquiry. However, my personal experience suggests the opposite, that they are sending -- at least as recently as last night -- my exact location even for a private location.

thomwatson replied on August 15, 2008 17:40 to the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

I've noticed that when checking into a location that's marked "Always Private," like my home address, Bkite appears to send the exact location to Fire Eagle, not the inexact one that it's providing to other Bkite users. FE then displays information about my exact location, and provides it to other apps that poll FE. When I twittered about this last night:

@brightkite If I have a place set to always be private, what info does it provide to Fire Eagle? Looks like it's sending the full location.

Bkite's response was:

@thomwatson FE does not have the granularity of privacy controls available in Bkite. We share the publicly available location with FE.

Wouldn't the "publicly available location" for a location marked as always private be the inexact version? This seems to be what they say they're sending in response to my inquiry. However, my personal experience suggests the opposite, that they are sending -- at least as recently as last night -- my exact location even for a private location.

A comment on the idea "One more "zone" of privacy between "City" and "Exact"" in Brightkite:

I'd like something between city and hidden too. My "city" is pretty small, and by using that I'm giving out more info than many US neighbourhood names would. – notsheep, on August 15, 2008 12:51

A comment on the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

That sounds awesome! – Chris J, on July 30, 2008 03:00

A comment on the idea "Attach Privacy Level to Location" in Brightkite:

That sounds awesome! – Chris J, on July 30, 2008 03:00

A comment on the idea "One more "zone" of privacy between "City" and "Exact"" in Brightkite:

Does this work for numerical lat/long checkins as well? Also through the API? Then I need to get a WM6 app with location updates working with Brightkite soon, so I can checkin at a precise location with the results from the OSM NameFinder as the custom label with a simple action on my phone. – peSHIr, on July 22, 2008 07:17

Lesley replied on July 22, 2008 00:56 to the idea "One more "zone" of privacy between "City" and "Exact"" in Brightkite:

Neighborhoods are something we will add in the future, but right now we don't have any sort of time frame. In the meantime, you can add custom labels to locations indicating a neighborhood. Say, for instance, I wanted to check in to the Highlands neighborhood in Denver, I would enter the following on the main site:

W. 38th Ave, Denver, CO [Highlands]

It would then show up as:

http://brightkite.com/places/433ba695...

The only catch is that you can't do this at city level, so if I tried Denver, CO [Highlands] it wouldn't work. I hope this is a helpful alternative until we can get a neighborhood option in there.