toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
As I pointed out to Cherrill, libraries have never had a problem with this. Both the Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal classification systems have call number ranges for what is termed "general" subject sources such as encyclopedias like the Wikipedia or magazines like Time or Newsweek. Words like diverse could be used in a list of subject areas for a discussion group services subject categories.
More words like diverse can be found here:http://tinyurl.com/kcq7hfp
(215) 204 - 4584
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Cherrill wrote:
I have just found out that there are groups here that have many many different topics so to categorize them by
my suggestion would not work.I was just going by my own experience with groups, so this is a moot point.
think purple and smile!
On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Cherrill <email@example.com> wrote:
I am just trying to say that if someone is wanting to join a specific type of group, ie friends, pets,
technical, whatever; they may not want to scroll through that many pages to find whether there is the type of
group they want or not. ï¿œOur little group will remain small because that is the way we want it; and it doesn't
matter if it is featured or not; but if it ends up on page 99 or something, a person looking for our type of
group will never find it.
However, the 'powers that be' will make the decision on how to categorize groups.
On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
coffeechocolatechitchat would probably deserve to be featured under my suggestion since it appears to be the
most (only) active organic group, apart from those with automated posts. The only reason why I didn't mention it
was because your archive is non-public, so I can't personally vouch for the content.