Date   

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 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

 

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 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

 

walkraft,

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.
That's what the Invite mechanism does: sends the person an email. Their reply to that message adds them to the group's mailing list. Providing the person with the group's +subscribe address might be effectively the same thing. Hm, I guess I should test that.

Why does each member need to authorise the transfer of their
messages?
By international copyright convention each author has an implicit copyright to their writings. Most authorities I've read say this extends even to such small works as message postings in online services. It certainly applies to photographs and other images.

But beyond that, it is just good business (I think) to show that level of respect for your users and their content.

In the case of Yahoo Groups, Yahoo asserts that the contributing member retains ownership of the content - that's a promise that the group moderator must keep, or else be in violation of Yahoo's Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.

What the difference between moving mailing list providers and moving
web hosts, so long as the new host offers reasonable protection for
users privacy?
The difference is that the individual members have a contract with Yahoo (or, presumably, Google equivalently) regarding the disposition of any content they contribute to a group. It is not the group manager's content to relocate without permission.

In a pure mailing list (absent message archives and other stored content) this would not be a problem - the members must agree with the new list provider's terms of service, but that's usually treated as implicit in their use of the service.

-- Shal


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

There should definitely be a mechanism for users to delete all of their content in a group on Groups.io. The question is whether it should be opt in or opt out. If someone needs to opt into the transfer of their content, the vast majority of people will simply neglect to do so, even if they wouldn't have an issue with it. This would make group owners reluctant to transfer to this service. Imagine if someone acquired Yahoo groups, all content would transfer to the new company and those who didn't wish this to happen would be given the ability to opt out. It is the same thing here.

"By international copyright convention" - we all know that the inviolability of copyright is the one principle that Internet users hold most dear.... But this doesn't violate copyright. When you post material to a public mailing list, you've implicitly given the group owner permission to archive the content and for it to be distributed to other users. They are using the content in exactly the same way as before. It's not like the group owner has decided to write a book and include your content inside of it. If someone is unhappy with this, then they can delete all their content. If this still is insufficient, then they should have talked to the moderators and avoided groups where the moderators didn't share their views. It is not the job of a mailing list to enforce a particular view of morality, unless there is an official policy, belonging to the group itself or the service provider (ie. Yahoo), which explicitly bans the export of content to other services. Furthermore, anyone who posts on a public mailing list can't expect to maintain complete control over where that content goes.

If there is a special reason why the content in the group needs to be protected, then Groups.io could stop the moderators from importing the content. But a small minority of users shouldn't be able to put a roadblock in the way of a group being upgraded for the benefit of all, especially when the only loss on their part is having to opt out rather than opt in. And in the case where it isn't just a minority who are opposed to having their content migrated over, that it falls on the group moderators to recognise this and to make the decision not to migrate the content over. It is not the job of Groups.io to determine this any more than it was the responsibility of Youtube to verify the copyright status of each and every video that was uploaded.




locked Re: about the group-search

 

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM, ro-esp <ro-esp@...> wrote:

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

There is not. But you can create an email integration, which is a unique email address, that can be used to send messages to the group.

 
Is there a "new members moderated" setting?

Yep.

Mark 


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

Welcome to the group Trish!

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM, pnrfan@... <pnrfan@...> wrote:

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 already support the full list of email commands, just like Yahoo, except that we use a '+' instead of '-' before the commands (so groupname+join@groups.io, etc).

 
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.

You never have to go to the groups.io website to set up an account if you don't want to.


 
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 have that as well.

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

We support attachments in emails already. We do not yet have a dedicated links or files section.


Thanks!
Mark 


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
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.  ;-)

Hah. I literally LOLed at this. My wife and I have 13 month old twins, so, yeah, we generally are weary these days...


Mark


locked Re: about the group-search

 

Mark,

Is there an option for allowing non-members to send to the groups?
There is not. But you can create an email integration, which is a unique
email address, that can be used to send messages to the group.
Ah, I was wondering how that differed from the group's posting address. Very important that messages to that address be moderated (at least optionally) - which I think you said has or will be added to integrations.

I've found the ability to allow (moderated) non-member posting to be very helpful in letting would-be members or lost members get in touch with the group (they wouldn't be expected to know about the +owner address). So in that respect being able to allow non-member posting using the regular group posting address would be preferable.

At the very least non-member attempted posts should be logged, but for the purpose above I prefer the notification of a pending message so that I am alerted when it happens.

-- Shal


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

Chris,

The question is whether it should be opt in or opt out.
I've no problem with it being opt-out, in the sense of having a place during the join and invite mechanisms where the option is pre-checked. But I believe that the option must be fairly presented before the transfer action is taken. And it must not be taken on behalf of original members who choose not to join the Groups.io version of the group.

If someone needs to opt into the transfer of their content, the vast
majority of people will simply neglect to do so, even if they wouldn't
have an issue with it.
That all depends on how easy it is to accomplish, how it is presented to the members, and any "motivators" the group managers might wish to employ. I'm sure we could brainstorm some approaches to make it be a "natural" action to take.

This would make group owners reluctant to transfer to this service.
Maybe. But compared to what alternative?

I'll grant that some group owners seem to feel proprietary about the content of their group - as if it is "theirs" to do with as they please. Others may legitimately feel that their members trust them with custodianship of the members' content.

But members can be very touchy about such issues too. In some types of groups I wouldn't want to be the manager faced with the wrath of a member who believes their content has migrated without permission.

Imagine if someone acquired Yahoo groups, all content would transfer to
the new company and those who didn't wish this to happen would be given
the ability to opt out. It is the same thing here.
No, that is a completely different scenario. In that case the acquiring company generally acquires both the rights and the responsibilities of Yahoo with regard to the user's content. They "step into Yahoo's shoes" as it is said. And the members might not be given any opt-out opportunity other than retaining the right of deletion which Yahoo granted them.

But this doesn't violate copyright.
I beg to differ. And you will get strong opinions on that point not just from me.

When you post material to a public mailing list, you've implicitly given
the group owner permission to archive the content and for it to be
distributed to other users.
No. Again, with a Yahoo Group the only agreement is between the member and Yahoo.

The group owner has absolutely no rights or privileges with respect to the members' content, other than the privilege of exclusion (the group manager may prevent posting or remove a member's content at will). This is because the group manager is not the operator of the service - he/she is just another Yahoo user.

If someone is unhappy with this, then they can delete all their content.
If they are unhappy with this they can file a take-down order against Groups.io under U.S. law. This is an administrative hassle and legal liability that Groups.io will likely take pains to avoid.

Furthermore, anyone who posts on a public mailing list can't expect to
maintain complete control over where that content goes.
While that's true, in a practical sense, the law is an ass.

Moreover, not all Yahoo Groups are "public" - many (most, the vast majority?) have their content restricted to members-only access, and many (most?) have restricted membership. Members of such groups tend to particularly sensitive to the subject of having their content turn up elsewhere.

It is not the job of Groups.io to determine this ...
It is the responsibility of Groups.io to operate within the law of the land. And for all its faults U.S. copyright law (the DMCA) is clear enough where internet service providers are concerned.

... any more than it was the responsibility of Youtube to verify the
copyright status of each and every video that was uploaded.
Um, you should be aware that Youtube does exactly that on an ongoing basis. They do sophisticated pattern matching on an unprecedented (and truly astonishing) scale.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370

-- Shal


locked Re: about the group-search

 

Hmm, I have always been against allowing non-subscribers to post to groups, because that leads to dead groups that are festering pits of spam. I had not considered making it an option that those messages would be moderated. What about an option so that messages from non-subscribers just get re-routed to +owner?

We already log attempts by non-subscribers to send messages to groups. The email address of the sender and the subject of the message are logged.

Thanks,
Mark

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

>> Is there an option for allowing non-members to send to the groups?
>
> There is not. But you can create an email integration, which is a unique
> email address, that can be used to send messages to the group.

Ah, I was wondering how that differed from the group's posting address. Very important that messages to that address be moderated (at least optionally) - which I think you said has or will be added to integrations.

I've found the ability to allow (moderated) non-member posting to be very helpful in letting would-be members or lost members get in touch with the group (they wouldn't be expected to know about the +owner address). So in that respect being able to allow non-member posting using the regular group posting address would be preferable.

At the very least non-member attempted posts should be logged, but for the purpose above I prefer the notification of a pending message so that I am alerted when it happens.

-- Shal



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

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/6367?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 Roadmap

 

Perhaps it'd be useful to share and talk about the feature roadmap for Groups.io, especially in light of the recent conversation. Here's what I've been thinking, please let me know your thoughts.

- Calendar/Events with reminders
- Event signups, a la signupgenius.com
- Event scheduling, a la doodle.com
- General purpose polls
- Photo section
- Links and/or wiki (I'm leaning towards a wiki over a links section, but could be talked out of it)

Of course, the top priority is always bug fixing and making the site easier to use. Also, thinking of ways to increase engagement (i.e. getting people to come to Groups.io and use it). So, the recent conversations have been quite helpful.

Am I missing a killer feature? Would you order things differently?

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: about the group-search

 

I like the reroute-to-owner idea.  Then at that point give the owner the opportunity to flag them as spam.  I'm all for avoiding those festering pits. 

Trish


On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Hmm, I have always been against allowing non-subscribers to post to groups, because that leads to dead groups that are festering pits of spam. I had not considered making it an option that those messages would be moderated. What about an option so that messages from non-subscribers just get re-routed to +owner?

We already log attempts by non-subscribers to send messages to groups. The email address of the sender and the subject of the message are logged.

Thanks,
Mark

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

>> Is there an option for allowing non-members to send to the groups?
>
> There is not. But you can create an email integration, which is a unique
> email address, that can be used to send messages to the group.

Ah, I was wondering how that differed from the group's posting address. Very important that messages to that address be moderated (at least optionally) - which I think you said has or will be added to integrations.

I've found the ability to allow (moderated) non-member posting to be very helpful in letting would-be members or lost members get in touch with the group (they wouldn't be expected to know about the +owner address). So in that respect being able to allow non-member posting using the regular group posting address would be preferable.

At the very least non-member attempted posts should be logged, but for the purpose above I prefer the notification of a pending message so that I am alerted when it happens.

-- Shal



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

You receive all messages sent to this group.

Mute This Thread: https://groups.io/mt/6367?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: Roadmap

 

Hi Mark,

Here's a rundown of our needs.

My groups are animal rescue related, so for our purposes we need links, files and spreadsheets. We are storing specific links to articles/blogs/etc related to rescue, vetting, & training type topics as well as supply and fundraising resources. 

Files contain information about our members or brainstorming discussions we've had that we feel are worth saving to be able to easily refer back to.  There are some files we like to feature regularly, so having a scheduling feature linked to files is very helpful for us.  This file goes out once a month. This file only goes out in the winter months. This file only goes out when someone joins the group. This file goes out every December 1.

For photos, it's more important for us to be able to email those out to the group and for everyone to receive them. We don't really have a need to store them.  The shelters send through pleas for rescue help and include photos. Once that dog or cat is rescued, there's no need for the other group members to have a copy of it to refer to on the group site.

We also have a transport group, specifically for our volunteer drivers.  That group of people doesn't want to have to ever deal with a group site. They want email alerts when driver help is needed and an easy way to reply back to the transport coordinator when they are available to assist. So they want about as vanilla as you can get as far as features.

So far, for our purposes, an events feature isn't something we need, but I can see a need for it should a specific rescue start a group for their adopters/followers/supporters and in that scenario an events feature would be helpful for adoption days or fundraising events. 

We rarely use polls.  In the past 10 years, probably only needed that feature once or twice.

Given how much money goes into vetting and transport costs, rescuers are looking for free services for communication purposes.  So any feature that uses a paid service is probably not a feature we'd be using..  We typically end up in services that make their money from advertising (a la yahoo). If groups.io ever goes to that model, please please please give us the opportunity to opt out of certain topics via tags.  There's nothing worse than being a rescuer and seeing ads from puppy millers.  Yes, stupid Yahoo does that because the group talks about dogs all the time so they think we'd be interested in buying these cute puppies (that we all know come from horrific breeding facilities because we save them from that and spend thousands of dollars undoing the physical and emotional damage incurred).  Sorry, just went on a bit of a rant there, but the point is if advertising is going to be tailored, there really should be an opt out feature to go along with that..  Without knowing the programming involved, tags seem like the easiest way for end users to do that.  Or maybe tags to opt in.  So for example if I'm car shopping and I like Toyota vehicles, maybe for awhile I'll add the tag Toyota to my ad choices.

I'm not understanding how you feel a wiki could replace links.  Can you elaborate on that idea?

Thanks
Trish

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
Perhaps it'd be useful to share and talk about the feature roadmap for Groups.io, especially in light of the recent conversation. Here's what I've been thinking, please let me know your thoughts.

- Calendar/Events with reminders
- Event signups, a la signupgenius.com
- Event scheduling, a la doodle.com
- General purpose polls
- Photo section
- Links and/or wiki (I'm leaning towards a wiki over a links section, but could be talked out of it)

Of course, the top priority is always bug fixing and making the site easier to use. Also, thinking of ways to increase engagement (i.e. getting people to come to Groups.io and use it). So, the recent conversations have been quite helpful.

Am I missing a killer feature? Would you order things differently?

Thanks,
Mark



locked Re: Roadmap

Linda
 

Hi Mark,

The top priorities for my groups are Scheduled Files and a Links Library.

Thanks,
Linda 


locked Re: about the group-search

 

Mark,

Hmm, I have always been against allowing non-subscribers to post to
groups, because that leads to dead groups that are festering pits of
spam.
Without moderation I'd agree. But my Yahoo Groups that operate this way in fact receive very few non-member attempted postings (sometimes months between them), either spam or valid. In Yahoo's group settings you get this effect with the combination of allowing non-member posting and selecting "Moderated" (for all messages) or "Moderated for new members".

My use case for this ability is relatively small groups - classmate groups, PTA groups, and family groups, typically with no more than a few hundred members, all of whom I know in person. I almost certainly would not elect this option for a large, public, general-interest group; probably not in any group with open membership.

What about an option so that messages from non-subscribers just get
re-routed to +owner?
The only advantage I can think of to routing it to +owner is that if it is spam I delete it and I'm done. Routed to a pending queue I have to forward the pending notice to the +reject address and then delete it.

Even so, I prefer that such messages go into the Pending queue, or perhaps into a Spam? queue, so that I can approve them if appropriate. My typical use case is a member who has changed email providers without updating their subscription, or accidentally used the wrong one today.

Now, some additional automation to help them correct the error would be welcome (but hardly an urgent need). Something like a "you used an address that is not subscribed to this list" return message that allows them to verify that address as a new subscription. I would only select that action in cases where I am sure from the message body that I'm dealing with someone who is or should be a member. And of course this only applies to groups that elect to allow non-member posting - in other groups a straight bounce of the attempted non-member post is appropriate.

-- Shal


locked Re: Roadmap

 

Mark,

- Calendar/Events with reminders
I'll agree with this one on top. Reminders are useful in most of my types of groups.

Assuming the existence of general Files storage (not on your list), if a reminder can have attached files that might check off the "scheduled files" feature in a more natural and more flexible way than Yahoo Groups' mechanism.

- Photo section
I might put photos ahead of polls. I had long hoped that Yahoo Groups would integrate their Photos section with Flickr in some slick way, allowing me to present photos from my Flickr stream in a group album without having to upload it separately. Perhaps even creating an automatic linkage of some kind between a set on Flickr and an Album in a group.

- Links and/or wiki (I'm leaning towards a wiki over a links section,
but could be talked out of it)
I'd definitely choose a wiki over a links collection, if I had to choose. I long ago suggested a wiki as a feature Yahoo Groups should have. And then started using pbwiki because they didn't.

Even though one can manage a links list within a wiki, that is a bit of an artifice and won't satisfy all users (or use cases). But maybe if the wiki has a sortable table as a formatting element it would.

-- Shal


locked Re: Seeding groups

 

I think the use of tags would be excellent, especially if they are searchable
by search engines, which would in itself give publicity to Groups.io every time
someone searched for a word used as a tag.

I don't use Twitter, Facebook or Google, but publicise my Yahoo groups via my
personal web site. I appreciate, however, that most people don't have that
facility. I haven't found anything useful for that purpose on Yahoo, and their
categorisation is useless as far as I am concerned. Most of my groups are
family history-related, to provide contact for people researching the same rare
name or the same commoner name in a restricted geographical area, so most
members tend to be distantly related to one another but only "met" via the
group.

Jim Fisher

On 30 Oct 2014 at 14:24, Mark Fletcher wrote:

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.
--
http://www.jimella.me.uk - my personal web site covering many subjects
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


locked Re: Roadmap

 

Here's my idea for an improved links section layout. I was going to
post it to the Yahoo! suggestion board, but I suspect it would gain
more traction here.


Back when Yahoo! Groups was created, people tended to only have a
basic web presence. These days, they're just as likely to have
multiple links for twitter, facebook, pinterest, youtube, etc. This
leads to problems when trying to generate a usable links section. Do
you create separate folders for each platform, forcing members to
constantly switch, or create a lot of redundant entries in the main
folder for people to plow through?

One solution would be to allow for several links to appear within a
single entry. It could have a main entry, the text of which would form
the basis of its alphabetical listing, and sub-links which would
automatically translate themselves into icons for things like facebook
and twitter. These would then appear as clickable icons next to the
main entry and, possibly, in text form at the bottom of the entry.

Main Link (facebook)(twitter)(pinterest)(YouTube), etc.

Another idea would be to make Main Link a text-only descriptor,
instead of a clickable link.