Date   

locked Re: Seeding groups

ro-esp
 

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:

Walkraft,

Thank you! Your passion and desire to help are awesome.

I approached Groups.io as a project that would most likely grow slowly.
It's in a field with established competitors, and at first blush, many
people would say it's not 'new and sexy' (I disagree of course).
I disagree with you. It doesn't have to be "new, modern and fresh". Just because english doesn't have a word for it (in dutch:degelijk), doesn't mean people can't appreciate the lack of bells, whistles and changes-for-the-sake-of-change

And I'm ok
with it growing slowly, at first, so that I can get the bugs out, smooth
out the rough edges, and add needed missing features. So, I'm not
disappointed that there aren't many public groups right now, as I'm heads
down fixing and adding features.
I don't think you need thousands of groups yet. The big downside with yahoo's "more is better"-philosophy is that for some subjects there are dozens of tiny "paralel" groups, and often spamhavens.

[did you have a procedure in mind for when the mods go "AWOL" ?]



In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms. Perhaps
instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set of tags for
their groups.
If groups.io grows big, you may want to add a "sorting by geographical area", or maybe even "languages allowed" [nothing urgent about that]

One thing I don't think Groups.io does a very good job with right now is
helping group owners promote their groups. We display widgets to post to
Twitter and Facebook right after you create a group, but that's about it.
Perhaps I can make those more visible. If there are other ways we can help
group owners promote their groups, please let me know.
You can try to advertise your group(s) in a yahoogroup called Aannounce ...


groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

A few further points,

In terms of categorisation, I agree with that tags tend to be a better solution
...

Replying to an email address to subscribe is a really nice solution. It doesn't require the user to visit a separate website, it doesn't require them to manually create an account or add their email address. These are minor things, but will significantly increase the number of members who decide to come over to the new group. I would also suggest that it might be worthwhile to temporarily make directly adding a free feature in order to entice groups to migrate over.

Also, it might be worthwhile seeing how your competitors handle migration. I performed a search for "migrate from google groups". Groupspaces allows you to import a .csv from your group (http://help.groupspaces.com/customer/portal/articles/68464-migrate-from-google-groups-and-import-your-mailing-list). At least in 2009, John Resig found that the only way to export messages was to perform an IMAP dump from his email account or to screenscrape the site (http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/).

...

@Shal: Why does each member need to authorise the transfer of their messages? What the difference between moving mailing list providers and moving web hosts, so long as the new host offers reasonable protection for users privacy? Certain groups may contain a higher degree of confidential content and this caution may be warranted, but these groups should accept that if someone wants to search the old messages that they will have to search the old group.


locked about the group-search

ro-esp
 

Of course mods should have the option to use keywords (and maybe punished if they use them falsely). Since there's just a hundred groups under groups.io now , it's not very urgent to install them.

People looking for groups to join will probably also want to know whether a groups is private , or moderated.

Is there an option for allowing non-members to send to the groups?

Is there a "new members moderated" setting?


groetjes, Ronaldo

--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

Hi Mark,

There are definitely some advantages to growing slowly, but I suspect that the growth of this service would still take significant time even if you were to aggressively promote Groups.io. At the moment, a significant number of people who would be willing to join public groups sign up, click find groups, discover that there is nothing there and then leave and then never come back. Or perhaps they decide to come back in a month or two and if nothing is still there, they are likely to give up or forget about it. So there is a significant opportunity cost of the current situation.

I wonder if the existence of seeded groups would discourage people forming groups more than a lack of users on the service. I think the priorities of people starting a new public group are firstly, is there anyone on this site who might join my group, secondly, is this a good platform to host my group on and, much further down the list, is there a "similar" official group. I mean, the existence of an official Web Development group is likely to make it easier for someone create a jQuery group because it brings a bunch of web developers together into a space where they can talk to each other and agree that jQuery discussion has grown to the point that it requires its own group. Secondly, if someone has their own vision of how they would run a web development group, why not join as a member and apply to become the moderator once the group takes off? If they are later selected/elected as a moderator, then they have had their audience built for them.

Alternatively, if someone is intending to bring a pre-existing group, then they are likely to be less concerned about competition than about how easy it is to migrate over and how Groups.io features better meet their needs. If the group has a strong community, then they shouldn't be threatened by official involvement in a very few seed groups that ends as soon as the group reaches critical mass.

In order to get this community started, only 4 or 5 groups would need to be seeded. These groups would only be featured so long as there weren't any general interest organic groups with higher amounts of engagement. I suspect that these groups could gain a minimal userbase from just being featured for a few weeks. There wouldn't need to be a flashing banner proclaiming that these groups are non-organic, just a post in the group itself explaining that the group was officially created and how it is going to be run/transition over to community ownership. As soon as these groups are passed over to the community, the whole issue of discouragement ceases to be an issue. No-one will care that a group was at some stage official. The only thing that would cause people to feel threatened would be if you planned to keep control of these groups because then you would have an incentive to use the advantages of the platform to ensure that the official group succeeded and they would be worried that you might try to compete with their group next. Furthermore, people coming on board after these official groups exist will take their existence for granted. No-one complained about StackOverflow or Superuser or Server Fault when StackExchange opened up their platform (but you can be pretty sure that whoever founded Apple StackExchange would have if SuperUser had been created after).

...

Anyway, it may be worth noting that the idea of featured groups and the idea of official groups are two separate ideas. I would suggest that featured should be manually curated at the start to avoid groups like Poop showing up and to allow you to prioritise groups that appeal to a broader audience. Alternatively, "Featured" could even be a formula that took into account number of users, number of posts and last post. If you need help coming up with an algorithm, my field of study in university was mathematics, so I could create a formula to match your requirements.

- Chris


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

Mark,

That said, I've been thinking about ways to increase engagement. I
think your idea of seeded groups is interesting, but I'm weary of
having groups that look like they're sponsored by management, ...
*wary* - or perhaps you _are_ simply weary. ;-)

I agree with you about starting "sponsored" groups. Better to find ways to recruit subject-matter enthusiasts to create "organic" groups.

In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms.
Perhaps instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set
of tags for their groups.
Yup. Often a group fits more than one category, or in a select subcategory that isn't in the taxonomy (yet).

I like the idea of tagging better, especially if there's a facile way to suggest existing tags and provide tag descriptions while the group manager is adding tags. On the other side of the coin (a user looking for a group) something like a tag cloud could provide a way of exploring related tags (tags that are used together in more groups are more closely related than tags that occur together in fewer groups).

Also, I've been banging my head with trying to think of ways to make
moving groups from Yahoo and Google over to Groups.io more easily.
... Then we post a message to the group saying "Reply to this message
to be subscribed to the new Groups.io group".
Your existing sign-up mechanism is so easy to use that I'm not sure you need to do anything beyond letting the Yahoo or Google Group managers post the Groups.io URL or +subscribe address themselves.

Easier still may be for the Yahoo or Google Group manager to make use of your one-time Add fee - but that would depend on the relationship between each group manager and his/her members. Not all such relationships are friendly enough for a unilateral action like that to be welcomed by the members.

And I don't see a way to move archives over.
I think this has to be done member by member, to avoid privacy and copyright concerns. And it probably needs to be both-ways voluntary. That is, it may be that the Groups.io group manager needs to designate which Yahoo or Google groups(s) may have content migrated into their Groups.io group. And then each member of the Groups.io group would have to elect to have their own content migrated from the designated group(s).

To make this as easy as possible for the member, the Groups.io manager would likely need to create a "migration" account in the target Yahoo or Google group, and maybe give it moderator access if needed to access the necessary metadata along with the member content (I think that would be necessary in a Yahoo Group, not sure about a Google group).

The alternative, asking the member to provide Groups.io with their Yahoo/Google sign-in credentials, fails utterly for "email only" members - those without an owning account - which happen to be the majority of my Yahoo group members.

Clearly, I think, ownership of the content must transfer correctly; and that I think is handled by having each Groups.io member authorize the transfer of his/her own content, identified as such by matching email address. That may require that Groups.io grow a mechanism for users to specify and validate "alternate" addresses that they own; in case they can't use or change the address used in the Yahoo or Google group.

I don't know what to say about the other metadata that goes with the content. Primarily that would be the date/time the content was contributed to the group - it would be nice if that was preserved. But there most likely a raft of other details for the devil to be hiding in.

What such a migration capability implies for sorting/searching the Groups.io content I don't know. Maybe there's a use for #tagging the migrated content to identify its original origin.

-- Shal


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

Hi Mark,

I really like the idea of group owners being able to add tags to their group that are then searchable by people who are trying to find groups to join. Unlimited tags would be nice.  Some places limit you to 3 when you really need 5 or maybe even 15.

As for migrating people over from other groups services, for my purposes it would be easiest if I could just have an email address to hand out to people who want to migrate over or join as a new member.  Something simple like groupname-join@groups.io and for leaving, groupname-leave or groupname-unsubscribe.  A lot of the people in my most active groups are not technically savvy. Most won't ever go to the group site and will only receive messages via email or on their smartphones.  So they want it as easy as possible to join or leave a group.

We migrated two groups from yahoo over to wiggio.  It was torture for some of these people to go to wiggio and set up an account then figure out how to find the group to join it.

A customizable footer at the end of each message that goes out through the group would also be very useful for my groups.  Something that can be set up as the group default by the group owner/moderators and changed over time as needed.

We also use a lot of stored links, files and spreadsheets in our groups as well as photos that get sent via email.

Trish

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Walkraft,

Thank you! Your passion and desire to help are awesome. 

I approached Groups.io as a project that would most likely grow slowly. It's in a field with established competitors, and at first blush, many people would say it's not 'new and sexy' (I disagree of course). And I'm ok with it growing slowly, at first, so that I can get the bugs out, smooth out the rough edges, and add needed missing features. So, I'm not disappointed that there aren't many public groups right now, as I'm heads down fixing and adding features.

That said, I've been thinking about ways to increase engagement. I think your idea of seeded groups is interesting, but I'm weary of having groups that look like they're sponsored by management, because I think that might deter other people from starting similar groups ("well, we can't compete with Groups.io themselves"). I'd be curious about how others feel about that.

In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms. Perhaps instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set of tags for their groups. I'm much more a fan of bottom-up organizational structures than top-down taxonomies. They scale better and, I think, can be more accurate. What do you think about this?

One thing I don't think Groups.io does a very good job with right now is helping group owners promote their groups. We display widgets to post to Twitter and Facebook right after you create a group, but that's about it. Perhaps I can make those more visible. If there are other ways we can help group owners promote their groups, please let me know.

Also, I've been banging my head with trying to think of ways to make moving groups from Yahoo and Google over to Groups.io more easily. The best I've come up with so far is creating a mechanism where we subscribe a special email address to the Yahoo/Google group. Then we post a message to the group saying "Reply to this message to be subscribed to the new Groups.io group". But that's clunky, to say the least. And I don't see a way to move archives over. If anyone has any thoughts about this, I'd appreciate it.

So that's where my head's at. I could be wrong about all of this, and if I am, I hope everyone here convinces me so. :-)

And please keep suggesting ways to improve the service!!!


Thanks,
Mark


On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:13 AM, <walkraft@...> wrote:

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content..

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.




 

Integrations can now be moderated. When adding or updating an integration, there is a checkbox that indicates the integration should be moderated.

Mark


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

Walkraft,

Thank you! Your passion and desire to help are awesome. 

I approached Groups.io as a project that would most likely grow slowly. It's in a field with established competitors, and at first blush, many people would say it's not 'new and sexy' (I disagree of course). And I'm ok with it growing slowly, at first, so that I can get the bugs out, smooth out the rough edges, and add needed missing features. So, I'm not disappointed that there aren't many public groups right now, as I'm heads down fixing and adding features.

That said, I've been thinking about ways to increase engagement. I think your idea of seeded groups is interesting, but I'm weary of having groups that look like they're sponsored by management, because I think that might deter other people from starting similar groups ("well, we can't compete with Groups.io themselves"). I'd be curious about how others feel about that.

In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms. Perhaps instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set of tags for their groups. I'm much more a fan of bottom-up organizational structures than top-down taxonomies. They scale better and, I think, can be more accurate. What do you think about this?

One thing I don't think Groups.io does a very good job with right now is helping group owners promote their groups. We display widgets to post to Twitter and Facebook right after you create a group, but that's about it. Perhaps I can make those more visible. If there are other ways we can help group owners promote their groups, please let me know.

Also, I've been banging my head with trying to think of ways to make moving groups from Yahoo and Google over to Groups.io more easily. The best I've come up with so far is creating a mechanism where we subscribe a special email address to the Yahoo/Google group. Then we post a message to the group saying "Reply to this message to be subscribed to the new Groups.io group". But that's clunky, to say the least. And I don't see a way to move archives over. If anyone has any thoughts about this, I'd appreciate it.

So that's where my head's at. I could be wrong about all of this, and if I am, I hope everyone here convinces me so. :-)

And please keep suggesting ways to improve the service!!!


Thanks,
Mark


On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:13 AM, <walkraft@...> wrote:

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content..

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.



locked Re: Seeding groups

David P. Dillard
 

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

..

..



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@temple.edu

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.
sorry
Cherrill
think purple and smile!
On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Cherrill <cdjamieson@shaw.ca> 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.
Cherrill
On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, walkraft@gmail.com 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.


locked Re: Seeding groups

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

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.
sorry
Cherrill
think purple and smile!


On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Cherrill <cdjamieson@...> 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.  
Our 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.

Cherrill



On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, walkraft@... 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.




locked Re: Seeding groups

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

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.  
Our 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.

Cherrill



On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, walkraft@... 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.



locked Re: Seeding groups

 

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.


locked Re: Seeding groups

Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

In reply to this, my group doesn't have many members (5 at the moment), but we have a lot of topics and really a lot of emails.  Yet, we are still rated lower than groups who have more members, but no or only one topic and no or very few emails.

I think groups are better being grouped in categories as to what type of group a person is interested in joining.

I am hoping that this beta groups is not just for technical topics.

Cherrill
think purple and smile!


On Oct 30, 2014, at 8:13 AM, walkraft@... wrote:

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content.

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.



locked Seeding groups

 

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content.

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.


locked Re: What Does Five Integrations Mean?

 

Each instance of an integration is counted, so option 1 in your email.

The five includes any integrations used in the group as well as any integrations used by any of its subgroups.

Mark

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:49 PM, <whofanvidme@...> wrote:

When you say that a Basic group can have up to five integrations does it
mean:

1) I can have a total of five integrations: one instagram feed, two
facebook status updates, and two RSS feeds, for example?

2) I can pick and choose as many integrations as I like, but am limited to
five of each type (five RSS feeds, five instagram feeds, etc.)?

3) I can pick and choose up to five different types of integrations (RSS
feeds, instagram, facebook updates, etc.), but can add as many of that type
(twenty RSS feeds, for example) as I want within those five?

Also, does that five count against a group and all of its sub-groups or
does each sub-group get its own five?

Thanks.



locked Wednesday site #changelog

 

Changes pushed to the site today:

- Sub group direct add email notifications now include a link to the group along with the group description.
- Miscellaneous backend changes for better logging. (not visible to users)


Mark


locked What Does Five Integrations Mean?

 

When you say that a Basic group can have up to five integrations does it
mean:

1) I can have a total of five integrations: one instagram feed, two
facebook status updates, and two RSS feeds, for example?

2) I can pick and choose as many integrations as I like, but am limited to
five of each type (five RSS feeds, five instagram feeds, etc.)?

3) I can pick and choose up to five different types of integrations (RSS
feeds, instagram, facebook updates, etc.), but can add as many of that type
(twenty RSS feeds, for example) as I want within those five?

Also, does that five count against a group and all of its sub-groups or
does each sub-group get its own five?

Thanks.


locked Re: Moderation For Integrations?

 

I think you're right, adding a moderation checkbox is the easiest and most straightforward way to achieve what you want. I'll put it on the list.

Worst nightmare? No way. Ask away!

Mark

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 7:53 AM, <whofanvidme@...> wrote:

> What happens when someone replies to one of these moderated integration
> messages? Should that message be moderated as well?

I don't see why replies would need to be moderated.

I was really just thinking that there are a lot of external feeds, updates,
and photos which, while they may periodically contain a posting that's
relevant to a group's topic, could also include daily postings of the
owner's lunch as well. And that, to avoid a lot of confusion and hunger, it
might be best to be able to filter these out before they managed to reach
the list. Ideally, you would have the option to simply tick a MODERATE THIS
FEED box as you add each one, with an option to edit the setting later.

One thing I did consider post-post was the idea of creating a sub-group
specifically for feeds. But I'll admit I'm discussing all of this in the
dark. I haven't created any sub-groups yet and haven't added any
integrations either. It's just that, if a service offers a feature, I like
to find a way to make use of it. I hate that so many of the Yahoo! Groups I
belong to are seen by their owners as little more than a mailing list when
they can be so much more. I should just pull the trigger and play around
with my options.

I'm afraid I'll soon become your worst nightmare, Mark. In answering this
post, I've just thought of three more related questions to ask.

Hail Hydra! B)



locked Re: How would groups.io deal with abuse?

 

Hi Ronaldo,

Groups.io has the usual assortment of abuse email addresses (postmaster@ and support@ being the two main ones). We have triggers on the direct add function which when tripped, cause the adds to be queued for us to moderate. Between that and the fact that direct add is only available for paid groups, hopefully we won't have an issue with abuse.

(Note that subgroups have the direct add function, but only for people who are already subscribed to the parent group. I don't believe that the possibility of abuse is the same in that scenario.)

Thanks,
Mark


On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:
Yahoogroups removed the add-feature because too many mods abused it. I understand groups.io does/will have it.

Will there be a complaint-adress? Will abuse mods get their status revoked or something?

I also thing yahoogroups has a webpage where people can "opt-out" of all invitations, but I don't think that's a good idea - because it would be too restrictive for bonafide groups


              groetjes, Ronaldo
--
http://www.esperanto..net  http://www.moneyasdebt.net



-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/5896?uid=3
Change Your Subscription: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/editsub?uid=3
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/leave
Group Home: https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta
Contact Group Owner: beta+owner@groups.io
Terms of Service: https://groups.io/static/tos
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



locked Re: Moderation For Integrations?

 

> What happens when someone replies to one of these moderated integration
> messages? Should that message be moderated as well?

I don't see why replies would need to be moderated.

I was really just thinking that there are a lot of external feeds, updates,
and photos which, while they may periodically contain a posting that's
relevant to a group's topic, could also include daily postings of the
owner's lunch as well. And that, to avoid a lot of confusion and hunger, it
might be best to be able to filter these out before they managed to reach
the list. Ideally, you would have the option to simply tick a MODERATE THIS
FEED box as you add each one, with an option to edit the setting later.

One thing I did consider post-post was the idea of creating a sub-group
specifically for feeds. But I'll admit I'm discussing all of this in the
dark. I haven't created any sub-groups yet and haven't added any
integrations either. It's just that, if a service offers a feature, I like
to find a way to make use of it. I hate that so many of the Yahoo! Groups I
belong to are seen by their owners as little more than a mailing list when
they can be so much more. I should just pull the trigger and play around
with my options.

I'm afraid I'll soon become your worst nightmare, Mark. In answering this
post, I've just thought of three more related questions to ask.

Hail Hydra! B)