I'm not sure why there would be a feature exclusively for people who communicate outside of Scratch that can't be used on the website.

thugatwoary wrote:

(#21)
I'm not sure why there would be a feature exclusively for people who communicate outside of Scratch that can't be used on the website.

Because projects aren't meant to be shared exclusively on the website.

saverofthewo wrote:

this is considercollabs all over again isnt it

*cough* sorry for starting that
Again, I no longer endorse or support that old thing I came up with.

Bump

Also I just realized this would make it a lot easier for collaborations using other sites.

Remove the /u/ from the link and then tell the recipient to add it back in. Congratulations, now you can share the link on Scratch

You would need to share the file outside of scratch tho

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

Remove the /u/ from the link and then tell the recipient to add it back in. Congratulations, now you can share the link on Scratch

Let’s say Minecraft.net was blocked. People could still remove the “mine” part and tell the person to add it back. They could also do something like mine(delete this)craft.net and the other person could still access the link. This isn’t just a problem with this system, it’s a problem with every link that’s added to the filter.

portalpower wrote:

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

Remove the /u/ from the link and then tell the recipient to add it back in. Congratulations, now you can share the link on Scratch

Let’s say Minecraft.net was blocked. People could still remove the “mine” part and tell the person to add it back. They could also do something like mine(delete this)craft.net and the other person could still access the link. This isn’t just a problem with this system, it’s a problem with every link that’s added to the filter.

There's a major difference between blocking something with the filter, and creating something with the sole intent of blocking it with the filter!

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

portalpower wrote:

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

Remove the /u/ from the link and then tell the recipient to add it back in. Congratulations, now you can share the link on Scratch

Let’s say Minecraft.net was blocked. People could still remove the “mine” part and tell the person to add it back. They could also do something like mine(delete this)craft.net and the other person could still access the link. This isn’t just a problem with this system, it’s a problem with every link that’s added to the filter.

There's a major difference between blocking something with the filter, and creating something with the sole intent of blocking it with the filter!

What does that have to do with anything?

portalpower wrote:

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

portalpower wrote:

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

Remove the /u/ from the link and then tell the recipient to add it back in. Congratulations, now you can share the link on Scratch

Let’s say Minecraft.net was blocked. People could still remove the “mine” part and tell the person to add it back. They could also do something like mine(delete this)craft.net and the other person could still access the link. This isn’t just a problem with this system, it’s a problem with every link that’s added to the filter.

There's a major difference between blocking something with the filter, and creating something with the sole intent of blocking it with the filter!

What does that have to do with anything?

Why should the Scratch Team invest time and resources into making something only to block it with the filter, something that can easily be circumvented? Sure, other things blocked by the filter suffer from the same problems, but the Scratch Team didn't dedicate time to make those websites. This entire system is just really, for lack of a better term, selfish. Why would Scratch ever block a part of their own website, in order to benefit a few needy “collaborators” who can't be bothered to simply… share a project. That's the point of a shared project, to let other people see it, right?

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

Why should the Scratch Team invest time and resources into making something only to block it with the filter, something that can easily be circumvented? Sure, other things blocked by the filter suffer from the same problems, but the Scratch Team didn't dedicate time to make those websites. This entire system is just really, for lack of a better term, selfish. Why would Scratch ever block a part of their own website, in order to benefit a few needy “collaborators” who can't be bothered to simply… share a project. That's the point of a shared project, to let other people see it, right?

Because people would use it. There are lots of features that are easy to workaround but are used so much that they get their own features. This is like that, it wouldn’t just benefit collaborators, it would also benefit beta testers, play testers, cloud gamer developers, people using scratch for school projects, people sharing projects with friends or family, people making projects that can’t be shared on scratch, or just people who only want a select group of people to see their project in general.

portalpower wrote:

Because people would use it. There are lots of features that are easy to workaround but are used so much that they get their own features. This is like that, it wouldn’t just benefit collaborators, it would also benefit beta testers, play testers, cloud gamer developers, people using scratch for school projects, people sharing projects with friends or family, people making projects that can’t be shared on scratch, or just people who only want a select group of people to see their project in general.

Don't see how any of those groups of people can't just push the share button. It does basically the same thing and has little to no drawback for 99% of users. Shockingly, most users aren't in a position where people care about seeing *gasp* unfinished projects!

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

portalpower wrote:

Because people would use it. There are lots of features that are easy to workaround but are used so much that they get their own features. This is like that, it wouldn’t just benefit collaborators, it would also benefit beta testers, play testers, cloud gamer developers, people using scratch for school projects, people sharing projects with friends or family, people making projects that can’t be shared on scratch, or just people who only want a select group of people to see their project in general.

Don't see how any of those groups of people can't just push the share button. It does basically the same thing and has little to no drawback for 99% of users. Shockingly, most users aren't in a position where people care about seeing *gasp* unfinished projects!

Even more shockingly, most people don't like it when people look at *gasp* stuff that's not their business. Also collaborators and beta testers don't like the anxiety about it getting leaked that comes with publicly sharing projects. There is a reason consider collabs got so big.

portalpower wrote:

Even more shockingly, most people don't like it when people look at *gasp* stuff that's not their business. Also collaborators and beta testers don't like the anxiety about it getting leaked that comes with publicly sharing projects.

This idea solves none of those problems. Nothing's stopping you from querying the API over and over for unlisted projects to look for them. That's a major reason why visible unshared projects was patched. Nothing's stopping any member of the collab from leaking the project themselves. And besides, why would it matter if something is leaked? That doesn't sound like collaboration to me, and kind of goes against Scratch's tenets of everything being accessible and reusable by everyone, not a limited number of people the project creator chooses.

portalpower wrote:

There is a reason consider collabs got so big

And there's a thousand more reasons why the Scratch Team closed it.

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

portalpower wrote:

Even more shockingly, most people don't like it when people look at *gasp* stuff that's not their business. Also collaborators and beta testers don't like the anxiety about it getting leaked that comes with publicly sharing projects.

This idea solves none of those problems. Nothing's stopping you from querying the API over and over for unlisted projects to look for them. That's a major reason why visible unshared projects was patched. Nothing's stopping any member of the collab from leaking the project themselves. And besides, why would it matter if something is leaked? That doesn't sound like collaboration to me, and kind of goes against Scratch's tenets of everything being accessible and reusable by everyone, not a limited number of people the project creator chooses.

Good point. The best solution I can think of is just to make all future projects have randomly generated project IDs like every other site. I think that's how Youtube keeps their unlisted videos from being found. But then again, I've never used scratch's api so I don't know. The reason people don't want it to be leaked is because it kills all the hype by spoiling the game. There's also the threat of the game being stolen.

SavetheAtlantic wrote:

portalpower wrote:

There is a reason consider collabs got so big

And there's a thousand more reasons why the Scratch Team closed it.

But only one of those reasons apply here.

Bump

Would social actions still be available on the project page?

portalpower wrote:

ScratchCat1038 wrote:

(#8)

jvvg wrote:

(#7)
You could alternatively just make the project in the offline editor and share the file via other means.

But that's a lot tougher and not everyone knows how to do it.

Also, nobody wants to get the offline editor for one project.

Also file space.

Or you could just download it without getting the offline editor. Though file space is fair.

The point of this feature is unclear to me, if anyone would mind explaining that would be great

RocketDesign_ wrote:

The point of this feature is unclear to me, if anyone would mind explaining that would be great

Basically, it's so you can create projects on Scratch but not share them on the website. If you wanted to send a link to somebody outside of Scratch (ex. a happy birthday card), then you could use this feature.