locked Re: categorisation


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 11:14 PM, Ant No wrote:

As I understand it there are three main opinions.

A massively detailed hierarchy such as the dewy decimal.

20 or so broad categories.

A bottom up tagging system.

The greatest support seems to be for number two but mark favours number three.
So do I. Yahoogroups could have attracted a lot more users if the search had worked. What went wrong is that some porn-spammers created group after group with the same huge list of tags, and yahoo wasn't willing to do anything about it.

Do we need to have tag-lists approved by a human before the group can be used? Limit the amount of tags per group to 10 or 20?

groetjes, Ronaldo

I feel number one would be a lot of work and counterproductive in just making
it easier to find things you might not know exist but appeal when you see

I favour number two myself.

In particular for group types that have large numbers of groups attached.
Really, after reading through the most popular third of the whole list, the
first five struck me as being a lot to read through if they're not what your
looking for. That could change as the new groups come on line.

They may well be a large part of the two thirds classed as unpopular because
they're new and not yet fully signed up or used.

A system based just on how many groups are in a category is practical and
casts no judgement. If anything it's an affirmation of how popular the
category is.

From what I've seen so far I could live with the top five of mine  plus
other. I can slog through to a fair extent. The others were mostly ones I
noticed to a lesser extent number wise or personal preferences.

Subject to change as all the new groups get fully functional.

The third option has had several years to organically materialise but didn't
help me while I was wishing I could exclude some high instance group types
while attempting an exhaustive search. That may be my ignorance but if so
please enlighten me. Bearing in mind I don't always know what I want until I
find it.

We are all one at some level of existance. I see you all as aspects of a
greater whole that I am also a small part of. One of the groups I would never
have thought to search for holds to the same belief. I found it, amongst
others, only after great labour wading through the high interest areas.

The esoteric need not be occluded. Minorities matter.


Join main@beta.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.