Date   

locked Re: categorisation

Juulz
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:39 PM, Ant No wrote:
The system I propose seems logical, simple and effective. It's an addition to what currently exists not a replacement for anything.
Like I mentioned earlier... Determining the correct word choice for each category would be a monumental task in and of itself. For me, I am not in agreement with many of your suggestions.

I think keywords work much better and allow each group to determine how they want to be found.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

Thank you again for your help Duane.

I see now the drop menu is just for topics.

What you tell me seems to support my own observations and experience that tags may have their place but finding groups is not that place.

The system I propose seems logical, simple and effective. It's an addition to what currently exists not a replacement for anything.

Apart from, "very busy at the moment" and a modest amount of work I can't see the problem unless it's ideology over pragmatism.


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that a system based on the actual groups demographic will always work better than any theoretical academic construct or a personal  preference/attraction or emotional distaste for a particular method.

Admittedly there are around 12000 groups and counting I haven't looked through but a sample size of 7000 seems large enough to be helpful in identifying the popular categories that actually exist, here, now.

I believe that basing a system on the realities of what is there will work. I think insurance companies use actuarial data that way. What actually happens defines thier rates.

Getting a category for your group is not pigeonholing you. It's a big up that you're an important/popular topic and it creates a way for less popular groups to be found more easily.

If the suggested categories were implemented it would make it easier to manually inspect what remains (other) to see if there are sufficient numbers of groups that share an interest to suggest additional categories that actually exist as popular group types.

Frankly I'd never even heard of incredimail but it spawned a lot of groups so deserves a category. It's not about what I like (mostly) it's about what's there.

Hopefully a good chunk of the unviewed and new 12000 and counting groups would self identify with one of the currently observed categories and not need to be manually scanned. Thus making it easier to look through a smaller uncategorised "Other" section to identity possible additional categories. It seems simple and obvious to me. "Self evident" I think is the American phrase, Bill of rights or constitution, I forget. Wish we had them though.

I'm just trying to solve the problem I encountered in a rational way that works and is as simple as possible. Tags may be a newish trend and I'm sure they have their place but they didn't help me here. No one has told me how they could have.

It doesn't matter how attractive a theory seems if it doesn't actually work in practice.

I understand that a search function and bottom up tagging have a low administrative burden. I also understand that's a genuinely important consideration. But I'm not suggesting anything with a high burden. I've done the slog to observe and identify the initial actual categories plus some I added in out of preference. I'd be happy to identity which witch is which.

That's the one thing that hadn't been done in the previous posts I read suggesting this system. I believe that's enough to make it work without creating a high administrative burden.

If implemented I may do more.

Ant👣


locked Re: categorisation

Juulz
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:46 PM, Drew wrote:
Keywords section in their group descriptions
Excellent! This solution is much better than sticking your group in a pigeonhole. 

The other problem with pigeonholes is proper wording. For example.. the above suggestion of a category labeled "Disability" would cause all sorts of ruckus in the US. Determining the correct word choice for each category would be a monumental task in and of itself.


locked Re: categorisation

Bob Bellizzi
 

I would suggest that this is for those who wish to do so.
I'm sure some groups would rather remain anonymous
--

Bob Bellizzi


locked Re: categorisation

Drew
 

Owners should be encouraged to include a Keywords section in their group descriptions. Our group has added it below the primary description (in very small font size so it is less obtrusive), but it is of course scanned by the search engine. All variations of pertinent keywords should be included: plural, singular, compound, etc.

Example- a search for any of the following terms will include our group in the results:

telegraph
telegraphy
radio telegraph
radiotelegraph
radiotelegraphy
straight key
straightkey
straightkeys
etc.

I'd suggest that there should be a separate Keywords section in the group settings. That would prompt new group owners to compose a list of meaningful keywords and would improve the usefulness of groups search generally.

Public display of the keywords section in the group's description could be made optional but the search engine would always include them as hits in its results.

I suppose browse categories such as "Science", "Art", etc., could also be included in the keywords. I don't know that we need to have Groups.io "official" categories; I'd probably never be inclined to use them for my own group searches or group's keywords.

BTW, if you add keywords or otherwise alter your group's description the changes won't appear in the search results for a day or so.

Drew

On 10/28/19 08:50, Duane wrote:
On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:25 PM, Ant No wrote:
I have looked at the drop down menu of tags.
There is not a drop down on the Publicly Listed Group page and tags are not a site search.  The only way to find a particular group is to hope that the owner included a keyword in the description that would be somewhat limited among groups.  I searched for 'widget' and found exactly one group.  A more generic search for 'group' found over 9000.
Duane


moderated Re: New search indexing is down

 

Hello,

It took much longer than I thought, but the new search cluster is now live and we are mostly caught up with indexing messages. One catch is that Files search currently only works on PDFs (not Word docs, etc). I will be fixing that soon.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: categorisation

Duane
 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:25 PM, Ant No wrote:
I have looked at the drop down menu of tags.
There is not a drop down on the Publicly Listed Group page and tags are not a site search.  The only way to find a particular group is to hope that the owner included a keyword in the description that would be somewhat limited among groups.  I searched for 'widget' and found exactly one group.  A more generic search for 'group' found over 9000.

Duane


moderated Additional Storage tiers #suggestion

Eric di Domenico
 

I would like to have additional storage tiers or something.

We expect to hit the 10gb storage limit.

We are just a group of people with a shared interest, so we don't have the budget for the 200$ a month plan, and we probably don't need 1TB of data.

But having 50gb as part of the premium (or at a reasonable additional cost) would be very helpful.


moderated Re: Migrate Groups to Subgroups

Ant No
 

Thanks, that might solve the problem with the group I'm still worried about. I've posted it to the group, hopefully just under the last post wire.

Night night.

Ant👣


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

Hello Ronaldo

I'm actually trying to get away to my new groups but have to ask; how would the tag system have helped me find the group I mentioned? Given I didn't even know it existed and would not be looking for it specifically. But was glad to find it as it is part of my own core beliefs. Not one I would expect to find a group on.

I have looked at the drop down menu of tags. None of them looked useful to me personally. None of them attracted me or seemed interesting to pursue.

I can't favour any system that doesn't facilitate finding the obscure group who wants like minds to find them. It's hard enough being part of a minority without being hidden from each other.

Mine was a purely pragmatic suggestion. It would work to make it easier. That's all I want. Something that works. It's not an ideological belief. It's an observation based on slogging through several thousand groups the hard way over a couple of days 6320 of the most popular plus 680 new groups, serendipitously an even 7000. How things work is my major thing, most of my many other interests branch from that.

Tagging seems more like a belief you wish would work rather than one which currently does. I'm not saying it couldn't, just that after several years of unstructured organic growth it doesn't yet. Or not for me. If you know the secret please tell me.

A science fiction author once wrote that the future needed eclectic synthesists who could connect the dots. I believed him. I do my inadequate .best.

Beyond a bit tired. Sleepy now.

Goodnight.

Ant👣


moderated Re: email privacy

Judy F.
 

The owner/moderator has to set that in Settings then look through the various options.  It is there.
Judy F.
SW Florida - USA


locked Re: categorisation

ro-esp
 

oops, forgot to trim there.

PS Ideally we would be able to choose whether the tags would be picked up by search-engines outside groups.io


groetjes, Ronaldo


locked Re: categorisation

ro-esp
 

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
them.

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.

Ant👣


moderated Re: email privacy

Ant No
 

Hello Duane

I passed your wisdom on to the upset member. Hopefully he will be reassured. I suggested he check if he can see everyone else's full email to determine the current setting.

If he can I'll talk the owner through how to change it by following your instructions.

I'm a bit tired now so I'm going to leave these intensive threads until I've had time to check in and say hello to my new groups.

I prefer the positive cheerleader role most of the time. These have been an effort.

I may be some time...

Ant👣


moderated Re: Narrow formatting in Digests?

ro-esp
 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 06:12 PM, Phil Smith III wrote:

groups.io seems very nice so far except for one thing: Digests are formatted
in silly narrow columns.
I am not seeing narrow digests in this group, but have seen it in another. I'm not sure why.

I do agree that "classic" digests are a lot better

groetjes, Ronaldo


locked Re: categorisation

Ant No
 

Hello again Duane

I read those two links but not the even older links the first one referenced.

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.

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 them.

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.

Ant👣


moderated Re: Direct Add

Ann Wild
 

I suggest sticking with the transfer process. It went through so smoothly for our group, and everything transferred.

Ann


moderated Operating a moderated group

David Tuma
 

I set up a moderated group after transferring from Yahoo Groups.  It was pretty simple for members to send me an email to be posted by the moderator - they just replied to the posting or they sent one to me as the owner.  I don't see how to do that with Groups.io.  I've tried sending emails from my non-owner/moderator account but either they get returned because I'm not the owner/moderator or they just don't seem to go anywhere if I send them to the owner.  Where I can find out how to do this.

Also, who does a "special" notice go to and what does it look like when it goes out?

Thank you


moderated Re: email privacy

 

Ellen I am pretty sure I saw an option for masking or not masking, your choice. I’ve made offline friends because I could see their address In the email. I wouldn’t post my personal email to a message board. 
Susan B





Susan B 


On Oct 27, 2019, at 2:50 PM, Ellen Moody <ellen.moody@...> wrote:

Is it true that members of a list cannot see the whole email of other members? As list"owner" (moderator), I can see emails of everyone. I would personally prefer everyone to be able to see one another's emails -- this way if people want to become friends offlist they can. If there is some rule that has been promulgated and prevents this I can say nothing but I prefer openness.  Ellen

Ellen

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 2:43 PM Ant No <cmpaqp1100@...> wrote:
I agree Chris but remember that at the moment owners are trying to rescue a cat from a burning building and IT may not be their forte.

The data Holder, ie groups.io, has a data privacy obligation in law irrespective of how we feel.

Ant👣