Date   

moderated Re: Posting as Owner / Moderator #suggestion

 

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 09:31 am, Gerald Boutin wrote:
A judicious use of email address and display names could serve to give you two different identities.
We do it that way. My group has a moderator account that all the mods can use anonymously when not wanting to post under our actual names. It has come in very handy in some situations.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Posting as Owner / Moderator #suggestion

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

Chris,

This idea is probably not ideal, but you might be able to "fake" this functionality using two separate email accounts.

As a moderator, I've found it desirable to have a normal user account for checking out issues. A judicious use of email address and display names could serve to give you two different identities.
 
-- 
Gerald


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 06:49 am, Chris Jones wrote:
The following has been the subject of some discussion on the GMF:

If an Owner or Moderator starts a "New Topic" then they can do so either as "themselves" or as the Group Owner. However, any replies they wish to make in any thread can only be done in their "personal" capacity.

1: Could things be changed to allow an Owner / Moderator to post replies (in any thread) as "Owner / Moderator".


However, when posting as an Owner / Moderator the individual's personal Display Name is shown on the website, and the email sent to members is sent as <Personal Display Name><Group Owner@...)

2: Could things be changed so that there is a separate Display Name for Owner / Moderator. Ideally this should be Owner selectable, perhaps with Owner / Moderator as a default setting, subject to the number of characters available in the Display Name field. (I don't think any limit is particularly low anyway, having looked at some of those on one Group!) The email sent to members should be <Owner><Group Owner@...) rather than the name of the individual.

Regards,

Chris


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Sharon Villines
 

On Apr 5, 2018, at 8:04 AM, toki <toki.kantoor@gmail.com> wrote:

On 04/05/2018 03:58 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

In this case the tags would be created by the group admins, so that may
mitigate the irrelevant tags somewhat. That is, the group admins have a
motive to be found under relevant tags.
My point is that there is no reason for group admins to not use
irrelevant tags for their lists. Even with a limitation of four or five
tags, tag spamming will happen.
One option would be to search only the tags that have a minimum number of uses, like tag clouds can when producing a list of tags.

Is this a question of the capabilities of the search function or the usefulness of allowing odd tags? In terms of time taken on all sides to use a conforming list, is it worth worrying about?

Even if a tag is odd, the people who are searching for such a group are probably similarly odd and will use the same tag.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC

"Reality is something you rise above." Liza Minnelli


moderated Posting as Owner / Moderator #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

The following has been the subject of some discussion on the GMF:

If an Owner or Moderator starts a "New Topic" then they can do so either as "themselves" or as the Group Owner. However, any replies they wish to make in any thread can only be done in their "personal" capacity.

1: Could things be changed to allow an Owner / Moderator to post replies (in any thread) as "Owner / Moderator".


However, when posting as an Owner / Moderator the individual's personal Display Name is shown on the website, and the email sent to members is sent as <Personal Display Name><Group Owner@...)

2: Could things be changed so that there is a separate Display Name for Owner / Moderator. Ideally this should be Owner selectable, perhaps with Owner / Moderator as a default setting, subject to the number of characters available in the Display Name field. (I don't think any limit is particularly low anyway, having looked at some of those on one Group!) The email sent to members should be <Owner><Group Owner@...) rather than the name of the individual.

Regards,

Chris


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

toki
 

On 04/05/2018 03:58 AM, Shal Farley wrote:

In this case the tags would be created by the group admins, so that may
mitigate the irrelevant tags somewhat. That is, the group admins have a
motive to be found under relevant tags.
My point is that there is no reason for group admins to not use
irrelevant tags for their lists. Even with a limitation of four or five
tags, tag spamming will happen.



jonathon


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

 

Susanne,

Shal, in your PTA example, how many of your tags appear as words in
the description of your group?
Hmm... Good question.

Yes: PTA, PTSA, "high school", parent, student, teacher, California, Monrovia

No: education, volunteer, "secondary school", USA,

How much more discoverability do the tags give you?
Hard to guess. It may depend quite a bit on how the tags are handled within the search facility. In a "relevance" type of search result I think it would make sense to rank tags higher than words in the Description.

Shal


moderated Re: Deletion of (last) sub group changes address of (remaining) main group #bug

 

Jeremy,

If however the sub group (or if there were several, the last) is
deleted, leaving only the main group, then this process is reversed,
so the main@mygroup.groups.io address is deleted.
Huh. I've long been under the impression that was not true. But it looks like my memory is faulty.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/10970

So I believe this should not happen, and the main@mygroup.groups.io
address should remain - as essentially a main group without any
sub-groups.
Right, that's what I thought would happen. Though now I don't see why I had that impression.

Shal


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

 

jonathon,

I remember when they were a thing, and despite limitations on either
the number of characters, or number of tags, irrelevant tagging was
the rule, not the exception.
In this case the tags would be created by the group admins, so that may mitigate the irrelevant tags somewhat. That is, the group admins have a motive to be found under relevant tags.

There would still be a potential problem with tag spamming (a group admin attaching very popular, but irrelevant, tags to their group in a bid for more membership); but that may be mitigated by limiting the number of tags a group may use. That is, if you're only allowed four or five tags, you may want to make them count.

Shal


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Duane
 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 03:06 pm, toki wrote:
looking at the tags for books that
people upload
But here, the tags would be assigned by the group owner, not members (public).  I suspect most people could find the group they're looking for by doing a search of the directory, assuming it's listed, from within the description (as it is now).  I've done a few test searches and by simply adding a second related word have narrowed them down to just a few groups.  The tags could be used as supplementary information.  Truth be told, it doesn't look to me like there really needs to be any additional search capability.  An owner could just include some specifics in their description if there might be many groups that are related.  I realize that some people are much more organized than I am though and believe a category system of some type would work better.

Duane


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

toki
 

On 04/04/2018 01:33 AM, Duane wrote:

be an unlimited number, but customized to each group, possibly with some limits on the number allowed.
Spend some time on archive.org, looking at the tags for books that
people upload. (Pray tell, what does Flat Earth Theory have to do with
the Illuminati Conspiracy, and what do they both have to do with Nibiru,
and the destruction of planet earth in December 2012?. Those are the
type of junk tags that one finds on Archive.org.)

I don't know if tags for YouTube videos are still a thing, and if so, if
viewers can examine them. I remember when they were a thing, and despite
limitations on either the number of characters, or number of tags,
irrelevant tagging was the rule, not the exception.

jonathon


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Sharon Villines
 

On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ <al@nn4zz.com> wrote:

Hi Sharon,
Can you give a few examples of your groups and which one of the categories you listed would you have picked?
Sociocracy/Governance would both fit under Social Sciences/Sociology. But most lists have “government, politics, taxes” for federal, state, local governments. Or there is "business, marketing, finance, employment" which also isn’t right.

Cohousing has sort of settled into "Culture and Community” but the subtopics of “issues, Cooking, Seniors” isn’t right. Also under this category are foreign cultures, and usually clubs of various kinds.

Where to put TimeBank Coordinators? It goes under alternative economies but popular lists don’t have economics as a category — it gets smushed with business. Economy is as much government as business. And as a discipline is under Social Sciences.

That’s why I like using the Dewey Decimal system as a base with years of experience and examples better than a list formed from popular marketing areas. Publishers ideas of relevant markets.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Marv Waschke
 

I like bottom up organization based on tags, but bottom-up organization can turn incoherent. The web and its search engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.) is a bottom-up organized system in which the participants designate their own tags. The web is a mess, but it is also surprisingly effective mess. For something relatively small like groups.io, a moderated tag system might work. Something like "owners get to choose among existing tags and propose new ones, new tags are scrutinized for redundancy, over-specificity, etc. and moderated when needed by a 'tag czar'." That might not be hard to implement. It would be only semi-scalable and a bit autocratic, but it might work well. If scale becomes a problem, just lop off the moderation.
Best, Marv Waschke


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

RickGlaz <rickglaz4742435@...>
 

Good point Walter.
This is looking (to me) like working toward having something similar
to what the major search engines already do behind the curtain. (Or try.)

I.E. Fuzzy searches that give analogous synonyms. (An oxymoron<?> in itself...)

It might be difficult to predict 'all' tags in advance, or have a pick list
small enough that people would actually use it.

I don't use tags a lot yet.

Rick

On April 3, 2018 at 9:38 PM Walter Underwood <wunder@wunderwood.org> wrote:


Tags defined by group owners kind of work, but mostly not. The same idea might be tagged with:

* BSA
* Boy Scouts of America
* Boy Scouts
* BoyScouts
* boyscoutsofamerica
* Scouts BSA
* Scouting
* Scouts USA
* Scouting USA
* Boy Scouting
* Scouts
* Scouting
* The Real Boy Scouts
* you get the idea

This is why controlled vocabularies were invented. User tagging only works for the most popular categories. After that, it fails spectacularly.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wunder@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/ (my blog)
Sent from my WEBmail.


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Walter Underwood
 

Tags defined by group owners kind of work, but mostly not. The same idea might be tagged with:

* BSA
* Boy Scouts of America
* Boy Scouts
* BoyScouts
* boyscoutsofamerica
* Scouts BSA
* Scouting
* Scouts USA
* Scouting USA
* Boy Scouting
* Scouts
* Scouting
* The Real Boy Scouts
* you get the idea

This is why controlled vocabularies were invented. User tagging only works for the most popular categories. After that, it fails spectacularly.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wunder@...
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)

On Apr 3, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

All of this discussion about what categories and how many is the main reason I'd like to see tags that are defined by the group owner.  There would, in effect, be an unlimited number, but customized to each group, possibly with some limits on the number allowed.  You could use whatever tags you think would make it most likely for people to find your group, without having to tunnel down into a list of categories, sub-categories, and even sub-sub-categories.

Duane


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Duane
 

All of this discussion about what categories and how many is the main reason I'd like to see tags that are defined by the group owner.  There would, in effect, be an unlimited number, but customized to each group, possibly with some limits on the number allowed.  You could use whatever tags you think would make it most likely for people to find your group, without having to tunnel down into a list of categories, sub-categories, and even sub-sub-categories.

Duane


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ
 

Hi Gerald,
Agree, if Mark adds a category feature it should be something that is simple and doesn't require a lot of effort to implement or maintain or use.

I've used the Yahoo category search feature to find other "Amateur Radio" groups to see what may be new and of interest.  (see snapshot below).    The Groups,io Key words searches can also work in many cases but it's not perfect either.  Amateur radio is often called "ham radio"  and I did a search on "ham" which found a lot of the groups but also others that are not radio related. 

But it's not a major concern if it's not implemented.   After reading some of the history on the idea and the feedback here with diverse ideas including valid pros and cons,  I can see why it has not been a priority.  

Regards,  Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com









 


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ
 

Hi Sharon,
Can you give a few examples of your groups and which one of the categories you listed would you have picked?

Regards,  Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

I am not so sure that it would be all that useful, or even used. I've belonged to dozens of groups over the years and I have never searched for one to join by searching on a Group site. I've always found them through websites based on interests I have. I'm not against it, but I wouldn't want to see a lot of effort put into it.

--
Gerald


On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 09:48 am, Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ wrote:
It would be very helpful to be able to search / browse groups by category.   There are new groups on Groups.io but it is not easy to find them for a specific interest area.  For example I'd like to see the new groups for "Amateur and Ham Radio" that are being formed.  See the illustration below, I don't think there is a good way to do this currently but it seem like it would not be difficult to add.

Regards,  Al / NN4ZZ 
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com

 


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Sharon Villines
 

If it is broad categories, I think an academic library set of subjects is better than one from a bookstore.

Of the categories you listed, I still wouldn’t be able to find a place fro my groups.

• 000 – Computer science, information & general works
• 100 – Philosophy and psychology
• 200 – Religion
• 300 – Social sciences
• 400 – Language
• 500 – Pure Science
• 600 – Technology
• 700 – Arts & recreation
• 800 – Literature
• 900 – History & geography

This one is more inclusive

Sharon

On Apr 3, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ <al@nn4zz.com> wrote:

There is a basic decision to be made.

• Should there be a concise (i.e. 20 -30 entries) single level list of broad categories or should there be a more detailed system (i.e. multi level with hundreds of entries)?

Since we can already search for a group by a key word, the complex method already exists to a large degree. My vote is for the simple, short list of broad categories primarily to make browsing groups simple.
There are pros and cons for each so I doubt there will be a consensus. I can see why this idea has been on the list for several years, there is probably no perfect answer.

I mentioned earlier that I'd update my category list based on the feedback and here it is below. I broadened a few categories and the list grew by 1 to 21, still pretty short.

<Categories V3.jpg>

Regards, Al / NN4ZZ
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com

<Categories V3.jpg>


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ
 

There is a basic decision to be made. 

  • Should there be a concise (i.e. 20 -30 entries) single level list  of broad categories or should there be a more detailed system (i.e. multi level with hundreds of entries)?

Since we can already search for a group by a key word, the complex method already exists to a large degree.   My vote is for the simple, short list of broad categories primarily to make browsing groups simple. 
There are pros and cons for each so I doubt there will be a consensus.   I can see why this idea has been on the list for several years, there is probably no perfect answer.     

I mentioned earlier that I'd update my category list based on the feedback and here it is below.  I broadened a few categories and the list grew by 1 to 21, still pretty short.  



Regards,  Al / NN4ZZ  
al (at) nn4zz (dot) com

13041 - 13060 of 29450