Date   

locked Re: EU General Data Protection Regulation

Chris Jones
 

Victoria has raised an important issue; the Groups of which I am a member do not store (in any form) anything beyond members' Display Names and email addresses, and of course that storage is actually at Groups.io.

From reading posts on this and the GMF it is apparent that some Groups hold other much more personal information about their members, and if those members (and / or the Group Owners) are in the EU then the GDPR is something they (the Owners) really need to consider.

IANAL so I am not in a position to speculate on how much responsibility rests with individual Owners and how much with Groups.io as a corporate entity.

Chris.


locked EU General Data Protection Regulation

 

On May 25th 2018 a new privacy policy regulation is becoming valid and will be applicable in all member states to harmonize data privacy laws across Europe:

 

https://gdpr-info.eu/

 

This concerns every platform which is used by Eu-citizens, commercial and private. Since these regulations are substantially stricter than the ones I used to have on my sites so far, modifications to already existing private policy terms became necessary. Everyone who´s got homepages is obliged to adjust their private policy terms according to the new regulations, visible to everybody from the outside. High fines are waiting, and no need to say that lawyers are in the starting gates to search sites and send admonitions.

 

If mailing lists are concerned I do not know for they are not specified in the new regulations. Neither do I know if the private policy terms as they are laid out in groups.io meet the requirements.

 

Just to inform you ..

 

Victoria


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 


At 2018-04-06 03:52 AM, David P. Dillard wrote:
Unfortunately there is nothing simple about subject classification

Amen.

and a simplistic list will have very little value for finding discussion groups with specific topics of coverage such as diabetes or the war of 1812 as with the growth of GroupsIO there may be many medical and history groups here and these topics may have a huge body or lists under each of these categories for a potential member to wade through to find the list subject they desire.

Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University Libraries

Do you see a problem with having relatively few broad categories and achieving specificity with tags?

To use your example, have a category for Historical Events and tag it for the War of 1812.  "History" could also be used as a tag for other categories.  For example, if you have a group for your SCA chapter or historical re-enactment association, one of its categories could be Culture and Community (to use Al's list),  with a tag of History.  "Diabetes" would be a tag under Medicine, Health, and Wellness. 

Of course keywords from a group's description are also in play in a search.

-- Susanne



moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • NEW: When attempting to change your email address to an address that already has an account, and that isn't just subscribed to updates@, we now offer the ability to merge the two accounts automatically. An email is sent to the to account and that account has to accept it.
  • NEW: From the directory, you can send an email to another member. Limited to 2 per day to a specific person, 10 per day total per group.
  • NEW: We now keep and display the response from the email server on successful deliveries, in the Email Delivery History pages.
  • CHANGE: The group home page month view now takes into account a user's timezone.
  • BUGFIX: When editing a poll, the message that gets sent out now starts "A poll has been updated"....
  • BUGFIX: Plain text messages had emails obscured even when the group was set to show them.
  • CHANGE: Allow padding-left style, to fix indented HTML.
  • BUGFIX: Fix page back in group directory.
  • BUGFIX: Honor group aliases when processing emails.

Have a good weekend everybody.

Mark


moderated Re: Members emailing other members via the directory

 

Hi All,

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I could have been. This is to send an email to someone, without you seeing their email address. If that person then chooses to respond to the email, it goes right to you. We do not handle the responses.

If you're an owner/moderator, you're given the opportunity to send the message as from +owner, but otherwise the message comes from your email address.

Thanks,
Mark

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 05:25 pm, JohnF wrote:
1. What does the "From" look like on the received email? Does it show the sender's address, or some groups.io sender?
I've only tested initiating a DM from an owner account. A group+owner@groups.io email address is used. The reply-to also replies to that email address.
On the other hand, in my test, the group owner sees the member email address when composing the message. But that was already available to the owner.

2. What happens if the mail bounces?

3. If you can only mail someone twice in 24 hours, that's not much of a DM capability. If responses also go through groups.io, maybe it can reset that counter when there's a reply.
Only the initial DM is counted. Replies in the conversation do not increment the counter.

4. If the recipient sends a message back like "STOP" or clicks a link, can it stop that sender from sending direct mails to that recipient? If this feature isn't there, the recipient might start marking the messages as spam, and you know where that leads.

5. I'm sure someone will want the ability to send a message to multiple people. Is that a good feature, or should they just create a group for that sort of thing
Just typing things off the top of my head.

JohnF



moderated show "Likes" in search results #suggestion

 

It would be nice to see "Likes" in search results, just as they do in the complete message list.
--
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: Members emailing other members via the directory

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 05:25 pm, JohnF wrote:
1. What does the "From" look like on the received email? Does it show the sender's address, or some groups.io sender?
I've only tested initiating a DM from an owner account. A group+owner@groups.io email address is used. The reply-to also replies to that email address.
On the other hand, in my test, the group owner sees the member email address when composing the message. But that was already available to the owner.

2. What happens if the mail bounces?

3. If you can only mail someone twice in 24 hours, that's not much of a DM capability. If responses also go through groups.io, maybe it can reset that counter when there's a reply.
Only the initial DM is counted. Replies in the conversation do not increment the counter.

4. If the recipient sends a message back like "STOP" or clicks a link, can it stop that sender from sending direct mails to that recipient? If this feature isn't there, the recipient might start marking the messages as spam, and you know where that leads.

5. I'm sure someone will want the ability to send a message to multiple people. Is that a good feature, or should they just create a group for that sort of thing
Just typing things off the top of my head.

JohnF


moderated Re: Members emailing other members via the directory

Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 05:25 pm, JohnF wrote:
1. What does the "From" look like on the received email? Does it show the sender's address, or some groups.io sender?
My test message displayed my email address. But then again, so does every other group email.

2. What happens if the mail bounces?
I would assume these emails will be exempt from the group bouncing protocols, but I really don't know. 

3. If you can only mail someone twice in 24 hours, that's not much of a DM capability. If responses also go through groups.io, maybe it can reset that counter when there's a reply.
I suspect these limits are for spam avoidance. Do you really want someone sending you emails repeatedly? If so, after the first exchange or two you can take the conversation offline and simply not use the GIO interface. 

4. If the recipient sends a message back like "STOP" or clicks a link, can it stop that sender from sending direct mails to that recipient? If this feature isn't there, the recipient might start marking the messages as spam, and you know where that leads.
Both the sender and the recipient must have their profile visible to other group members. So there is already a mechanism to stop someone...changing your profile back to private.

5. I'm sure someone will want the ability to send a message to multiple people. Is that a good feature, or should they just create a group for that sort of thing?
We now have the ability to send to individuals or to the whole group. There will always be other possible features but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Bruce


moderated Re: Members emailing other members via the directory

 

1. What does the "From" look like on the received email? Does it show the sender's address, or some groups.io sender?

2. What happens if the mail bounces?

3. If you can only mail someone twice in 24 hours, that's not much of a DM capability. If responses also go through groups.io, maybe it can reset that counter when there's a reply.

4. If the recipient sends a message back like "STOP" or clicks a link, can it stop that sender from sending direct mails to that recipient? If this feature isn't there, the recipient might start marking the messages as spam, and you know where that leads.

5. I'm sure someone will want the ability to send a message to multiple people. Is that a good feature, or should they just create a group for that sort of thing?

Just typing things off the top of my head.

JohnF


moderated Re: RSVP request

 

Hello,

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Southenders Admin <nnnlriep6@...> wrote:
It would be great if the RSVP feature had a larger, more prominent text for the RSVP request.
_._,_._,_
Can you give me an example of what you'd like to see?

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Members emailing other members via the directory

 

Hi All,

I just added a feature to the directory. Members can now email other members, as a first step towards a DM system. Here is how it works:

- Under each member in the directory is an Email button, which takes you to a page to compose your email. 
- You can only email someone who has opted into the directory (obviously), and their email address is not exposed to you during the process.
- The email subject has [DM] and the group subject tag prepended to it.
- You can only email a particular person in a group 2 times in 24 hours.
- You can only send 10 emails total per group per 24 hours.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Suggestion - Access to databases be set at the database level

Ford Amateur Astronomy Club
 

I have a group that has multiple databases and it would be beneficial to allow role based access at the database level so some will be allowed to all members others can be restricted to Moderators or Owners as needed


moderated RSVP request

Southenders Admin
 

It would be great if the RSVP feature had a larger, more prominent text for the RSVP request.


moderated Automatic Deletion of Members / Spam Messages... More #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

Mark; I apologise for reverting to this subject but I realised this morning that the way the new "Notification to Member" finished up has resulted in something of an anomaly.

My original suggestion was as follows:

Because your Email Service Provider reported to us that one or more messages from [GroupName]@groups.io has been marked as spam you have been automatically removed from the group.  Please note that this "marking as spam" may have been done by your Email Service Provider and not by you. We suggest that you check your spam box as soon as possible to see if your Email Service Provider has diverted legitimate messages into it. (Your Email Service Provider may not be the same as your Internet Service Provider.)

However, the sentence underlined above was not included, possibly as a result of a comment from Shal, so that the paragraph now reads:

Because your Email Service Provider reported to us that one or more messages sent to you from GROUPNAME has been marked as spam you have been automatically removed from the group. We suggest that you check your spam box as soon as possible to see if your Email Service Provider has diverted legitimate messages into it.

The Notification to Owners retained the sentence about the MSP perhaps being responsible, meaning that the Owner is actually better informed than the unfortunate member. 

Can I please ask that the "missing sentence" is restored to its suggested location between ...from the group. and We suggest... It might even be worth keeping the underlining in place.

Next... from the same Notification to Member

The purpose of the sentence Groups.io groups offer several options for controlling how much and what types of emails to receive. See this Help Center article for more information:

https://groupsio.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/202739445

has also resulted in a little confusion, because as another (GMF) member commented it didn't seem to "lead anywhere", and I rather thought that as well. Would a better suggestion be to refer members to
Wikipedia: Feedback loop (email) which might explain things rather more?

Again I am sorry to raise this just after you thought the matter was over and done with, but I simply want to ensure that affected members are as well informed as is reasonably practicable. A large part of my concern is that there is sort of concensus that the "average member" may not actually be all that "IT - savvy".

REgards,

Chris.



moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 

Apologies for this message appearing twice.  It was a manifestation of email problems I've been having.

-- Susanne

At 2018-04-06 05:14 AM, Susanne wrote:
To: main@beta.groups.io
From: "Susanne" <sjlloyd@...>
Subject: Re: [beta] Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Jonathon,

At 2018-04-03 10:29 AM, toki wrote:
On 04/03/2018 10:37 AM, Susanne wrote:

> The goal of all search systems is to get an appropriate number of
> results that are highly relevant to the search query, without missing any.

That is precisely why I advocate either Dewey Decimal or Library of
Congress Classification Headings.  In both instances you're looking at
more than a century of determining where, and how to classify something.

Designed and applied by library professionals to books and similar materials.

[snipped the rest]


moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 

Jonathan,

At 2018-04-03 10:29 AM, toki wrote:
On 04/03/2018 10:37 AM, Susanne wrote:

> The goal of all search systems is to get an appropriate number of
> results that are highly relevant to the search query, without missing any.

That is precisely why I advocate either Dewey Decimal or Library of
Congress Classification Headings.  In both instances you're looking at
more than a century of determining where, and how to classify something.

Designed and applied by library professionals to books and similar materials.  However, it is not used to classify Yellow Pages listings or items on grocery store shelves.  They have classification schemes that are appropriate to their own purposes.  ( http://www.yellowpages.sc/en/yellow_pages/classifications.php

I run a group for the owners in my strata/condo building.  It is useful for notifying residents when workers will be in and around the building, keeping people updated on the progress of large projects, and sounding out owners on questions the strata council is considering.  It's a private group, so may not be the best example, but a scan of the DDC categories did not reveal an obvious classification for my group.  Where would you suggest?


> English-language library cataloguers create catalogue records that
> assign both a classification number (Dewey or Library of Congress) and
> subject headings (usually LCSH) to each item in order to reduce the

Er no. The classification number is derived from the subject heading.
Taking a CPIP record, Subject Heading # 1 corresponds to the first 3
letters of the Dewey Decimal Number. Subject Heading # 2 correlates with
the first two (or three) numbers after the decimal. Then you either use
the third subject heading, or the cutter number, depending upon the
depth of the library holdings.

I'm not sure how you might have reached that conclusion, especially since I think it contradicts your point.  If the classification number completely describes the item, why bother providing subject headings?  At the risk of veering too far off topic here, let me try an example of how classification analysis and the assignment of subject headings differ when applied to a library catalogue record for a particular book (the first one I laid hands on that had CIP).  I hope to clarify the difference between a classification into one of the disciplines that DDC lists and subject headings that describe topics covered in the work.  Or, in our case, paralleling categories and tags to describe groups.

Title: Provenance : how a con man and a forger rewrote the history of modern art. (Published: 2009.)
LC's CIP (Cataloging in Publication*) Subject Headings:
1. Myatt, John, 1945-  [He was the forger]
2. Art forgers--England--Biography
3. Drewe, John, 1948-   [He was the con man]
4. Impostors and imposture--England--Biography

(Note the facets of Location and Form that Walter referred to that are added to the actual subject.  Certainly location is something we would often want to capture as aspects of groups.)

CIP is created pre-publication.  Libraries catalogue from the physical book in hand.  So CIP data is not regarded as sacrosanct.  The order that the subject headings are listed in in the printed CIP is not duplicated in the structure of the computer record that contains the online data, where personal name subjects are entered before topical subjects.  However, when the record is displayed to users in online catalogues, this order can be altered to put the topical subject headings first.  So, there is no necessary relationship between the order of the subject headings and the structure of the classification code in DDC.

The DDC classification is 364.16'3.  Whoever assigned that put the title under 364 "Criminology" in the Social Sciences.  I can't be sure without looking at the schedules but I found something on the web that suggested that the .16 is "offences against property".
The LC classification is ND1662.  That puts it under "Examination and conservation of paintings" (thus emphasizing the fine arts context).

Supposing I was searching Groups.io for a group discussing art and famous art forgers, I'm not sure that I would recognize a classification labeled Criminology -- offences against property, or even just Criminology as the category I should search under.   I am not convinced that DDC (or LCC for that matter) is fit for this purpose..

*For those who might not be familiar with the CIP process, national libraries collaborate to share cataloguing data for books published in their countries.  Books get analyzed for basic bibliographic information before they are actually published.  The record appears on the copyright page.  In the U.S., the CIP is done by the Library of Congress; in Canada it's done by the National Library of Canada.  The records are posted in the respective online catalogues.  Other libraries can copy those records to their own library catalogues rather than paying someone to, in essence, duplicate the labour to get the same result.

I hope this example makes it clear that neither the subject headings nor their order directly impacts the assignment of the classification code as applied to books in libraries.  If it were otherwise, there would be no need for anything other than a classification.  Subject headings (i.e., topic labels) provide a different avenue for locating particular titles.  They can also provide hints on how to further expand research into an area of interest. 

> particular shelf in a library.  That is not what we are trying to do here.

But what is being discussed, is how to locate a specific group. An item
on a virtual shelf.

Possibly.  There may be times when someone searches looking for a specific group.  I think it more likely that someone will search for what groups might exist that cater to their particular interest.  If I am a new amateur radio enthusiast, I will want to look at all the relevant groups to see if there is one with members in my locale.  If I also discover one that discusses the historical role played in military communications, as Chris described, I might be thrilled. 

> Al is right that without the need to locate a specific item on a library
> shelf, assigning multiple categories is a valid approach.  And allows
> for, e.g., discussion of Politics in a particular Region.

Both Dewey Decimal, and Library of Congress Classification allow for one
to get as specific as Green Politics in the Fourth Ward of New Orleans
between 1980 and 1985.

Is that a subject being discussed in a group?  Is that degree of specificity useful for people looking for a group to join?  I am inclined to doubt it.  Equally, do group owners want to delve into DDC to the level necessary to provide that degree of specificity?  Not very likely, in my opinion. 

The controlled vocabulary used by either Dewey Decimal or Library of
Congress is incredibly simply to learn.

I was referring to the controlled vocabulary of the LC Subject Headings, aka Authorities.  As contrasted to the uncontrolled vocabulary of user-defined tags.

Walter wrote:
Dewey and LCC are systems for putting things in one place on a shelf.

Not quite complete.  In the physical realm, they are systems for collecting items about the same topic together on a  shelf for the convenience of the user/researcher.  Since books are often about more than one thing but can't be in more than one physical place, subject headings are used to accommodate that reality and to suggest other topics where relevant books might be collected on some other shelf. 

So, to drag this back to the question of how best to allow potential group members to locate groups they might be interested in joining, the initial position of some on this list seems to be that keyword searching of group descriptions alone is not sufficient. 

In that context, I think a small, accessible category list would offer hope to the user that there might be interest groups that reflect those categories (whatever they end up being).  From Yahoo's list, I find the idea of people having a place to discuss local community issues or particular hobbies or an author they just discovered to be friendly and appealing. 

It's clear that the brief category lists that have been proposed are insufficient to describe the universe of possible group discussion topics.  They can certainly be tweaked to be better, but they are still going to be inadequate. 

If the language in the group's description is still considered insufficient for search purposes even after applying a category, the question then becomes whether to allow tags and to what degree to apply controls to them.  A topic for a different email. :-)

-- Susanne



moderated Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 

Combining suggestions from all sides, what we seem to be proposing is either a new section in the general settings for a group, or maybe a new tab on the group's settings page.

DESCRIPTORS

CATEGORIES -- Select up to 3*
[Drop-down list of agreed categories]

SUBJECT TAGS -- Provide up to 5**
[User-identified topic tags]

LOCATION -- Add as appropriate
[Country]
[Region]
[City]
[Neighbo(u)rhood]

LANGUAGE(S) -- Select as many an necessary
[Standard drop-down list of languages]

*The drop-down list might contain just the label for the category, but elsewhere -- perhaps in the wiki, perhaps somewhere else -- there would be a document that develops the idea of each category without actually naming each and every possible subcategory.  Something along the lines of:
Entertainment and Performance Arts.  Includes groups that discuss such topics as TV, Radio, Movies, Books and Authors, Theatre.
Family and Home.  Includes groups that discuss topics such as Gardening, Genealogy, Parenting, Home buying/selling, Pets, (maybe Alternative Housing Arrangements to satisfy Sharon?)
Medicine, Health, and Wellness.  Includes groups that discuss such topics as Fitness, Nutrition, Support for people experiencing specific medical issues.
Music and Musicians.  Includes groups that discuss all genres and time periods of music (e.g. Early Music, Classical, Country, Pop, Rock) as well as performers and performances (live, recorded, streamed, videos, etc).

Obviously, this would need some work to develop it into a clear and comprehensive document.  But the idea is that is would be suggestive rather than prescriptive.

**Tag management would still be an issue, but perhaps there could be an advisory document for that as well, giving advice to owners such as:
Use "amateur radio" rather than "ham radio".
Beware of usage differences in other parts of the world. For example, use both "railroads" and "railways" to cover both the U.S.-used term and that used by the rest of the world. 
Consider what words you've used in your group's description.  If you used PTA in the description, use "Parent Teacher Association" in your tag.

This set of descriptors allows owners to provide meaningful descriptions of their groups for a potential world-wide audience.  And (rashly assuming a willingness by Mark to do the coding :-)) for multi-element searching to combine categories with tags with keywords from the groups' descriptions, and possibly even location and language. 

-- Susanne

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is not about how fast you run,
or how high you climb,
but how well you bounce.




moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 



At 2018-04-05 11:40 AM, Sharon Villines wrote:


> On Apr 5, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:
>
> The problem I see with Dewey or Library of Congress categories is that assigning them properly to books is usually a task for a specialist with a graduate degree in library science.

Only if you go to the more differentiated levels with thousands of distinctions.

The first level is 10 categories.

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

 The second level is 100, which would still be simpler than Yahoo’s hierarchy.

I don't think anyone has suggested using Yahoo's hierarchy.  In fact, people have expressed decidedly negative views of it.

I do want to observe, though, that my book group discusses books, not literature. 

-- Susanne




moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 

Jonathon,

At 2018-04-03 10:29 AM, toki wrote:
On 04/03/2018 10:37 AM, Susanne wrote:

> The goal of all search systems is to get an appropriate number of
> results that are highly relevant to the search query, without missing any.

That is precisely why I advocate either Dewey Decimal or Library of
Congress Classification Headings.  In both instances you're looking at
more than a century of determining where, and how to classify something.

Designed and applied by library professionals to books and similar materials.  However, neither is used to classify Yellow Pages listings or items on grocery store shelves.  They have classification schemes that are appropriate to their own purposes.  ( http://www.yellowpages.sc/en/yellow_pages/classifications.php)

I run a group for the owners in my strata/condo building.  It is useful for notifying residents when workers will be in and around the building, keeping people updated on the progress of large projects, and sounding out owners on questions the strata council is considering.  It's a private group, so may not be the best example, but a scan of the DDC categories did not reveal an obvious classification for my group. Where would you suggest?


> English-language library cataloguers create catalogue records that
> assign both a classification number (Dewey or Library of Congress) and
> subject headings (usually LCSH) to each item in order to reduce the

Er no. The classification number is derived from the subject heading.
Taking a CPIP record, Subject Heading # 1 corresponds to the first 3
letters of the Dewey Decimal Number. Subject Heading # 2 correlates with
the first two (or three) numbers after the decimal. Then you either use
the third subject heading, or the cutter number, depending upon the
depth of the library holdings.

I'm not sure how you might have reached that conclusion, especially since I think it contradicts your point.  If the classification number completely describes the item, why bother providing subject headings?  At the risk of veering too far off topic here, let me try an example of how classification analysis and the assignment of subject headings differ when applied to a library catalogue record for a particular book (the first one I laid hands on that had CIP).  I hope to clarify the difference between a classification into one of the disciplines that DDC lists and subject headings that describe topics covered in the work.  Or, in our case, categories and tags.

Title: Provenance : how a con man and a forger rewrote the history of modern art. (Published: 2009.)
LC's CIP (Cataloging in Publication*) Subject Headings:
1. Myatt, John, 1945-   [He was the forger]
2. Art forgers--England--Biography
3. Drewe, John, 1948-  [He was the con man]
4. Impostors and imposture--England--Biography

(Note the facets of Location and Form that Walter referred to that are added to the actual subject.  Certainly location is something we would often want to capture as aspects of groups.)

CIP data is captured pre-publication.  Libraries ultimately catalogue from the physical item, so CIP data is not sacrosanct.  The order that the subject headings are listed in in the printed CIP is not duplicated in the structure of the computer record that contains the online data, where personal name subjects are entered before topical subjects.  However, when the record is displayed to users in online catalogues, this order can be altered to put the topical subject headings first.  So, there is no necessary relationship between the order of the subject headings and the structure of the classification code in DDC.

The DDC classification for Provenance is 364.16'3.  Whoever assigned that put the title under "Criminology" in the Social Sciences.  I can't be sure without looking at the schedules but I found something on the web that suggested that the .16 is "offences against property."
The LC classification is ND1662.  That puts it under "Examination and conservation of paintings"
(thus emphasizing the fine arts context).

Supposing I was searching for a group discussing art and famous art forgers, I'm not sure I would recognize that I could search for it using a classification labeled Criminology -- offences against property.  I am not convinced that DDC (or LCC for that matter) is fit for this purpose.

*For those who might not be familiar with the CIP process, national libraries collaborate to share cataloguing data for books published in their countries  Books get analyzed for basic bibliographic information before they are actually published.  The record appears on the copyright page.  In the U.S., the CIP is done by the Library of Congress; in Canada it's done by the National Library of Canada.  Other libraries can copy those records to their own library catalogues rather than paying someone to, in essence, duplicate the labour to get the same result.

I hope this example makes it clear that neither the subject headings nor their order directly impacts the assignment of the classification code as applied to books in libraries.  If it were otherwise, there would be no need for anything other than a classification.  Subject headings (i.e., topic labels) provide a different avenue for locating particular titles.  They can also provide hints on how to further expand research into an area of interest.  


> particular shelf in a library.  That is not what we are trying to do here.

But what is being discussed, is how to locate a specific group. An item
on a virtual shelf.

Possibly.  There may be times when someone searches looking for a specific group.  I think it more likely that someone will search for what groups might exist that cater to their particular interest.  If I am a new amateur radio enthusiast, I will want to look at all the relevant groups to see if there is one with members in my locale.  If I also discover one that discusses the historical role played in military communications, as Chris described, I might be thrilled.  


> Al is right that without the need to locate a specific item on a library
> shelf, assigning multiple categories is a valid approach.  And allows
> for, e.g., discussion of Politics in a particular Region.

Both Dewey Decimal, and Library of Congress Classification allow for one
to get as specific as Green Politics in the Fourth Ward of New Orleans
between 1980 and 1985.

Is that a subject being discussed in a group?  Is that degree of specificity useful for people looking for a group to join?  I am inclined to doubt it.  Equally, do owners want to delve into DDC to the level necessary to provide that degree of specificity?  Not very likely, in my opinion.  


The controlled vocabulary used by either Dewey Decimal or Library of
Congress is incredibly simply to learn.

I was referring to the controlled vocabulary of the LC Subject Headings, aka Authorities.  As contrasted to the uncontrolled vocabulary of user-defined tags.

Walter wrote:
>Dewey and LCC are systems for putting things in one place on a shelf.
 
Not quite complete.  In the physical world, they are systems for collecting items about the same topic together on a  shelf for the convenience of the user/researcher.  Since books are often about more than one thing but can't be in more than one physical place, subject headings are used to accommodate that reality and to suggest other topics where relevant books might be collected on some other shelf. 

So, to drag this back to the question of how best to allow potential group members to locate groups they might be interested in joining, the initial position of some on this list seems to be that keyword searching of the group's description alone is not sufficient. 

In that context, I think a small, accessible category list would offer hope to the user that there might be interest groups that reflect those categories (whatever they end up being).  From Yahoo's list, I find the idea of people having a place to discuss local community issues or particular hobbies or an author they just discovered to be friendly and appealing. 

It's clear that the brief category lists that have been proposed are insufficient to describe the universe of possible group discussion topics.  They can certainly be tweaked to be better, but they are still going to be inadequate. 

If the combination of keyword search of descriptions plus filtering by category is still considered insufficient, the question then becomes whether to implement tagging and to what degree to apply controls to any tags that might be used by owners to describe their groups.  But that's a topic for another email. 

-- Susanne



moderated Re: Categories for groups -- idea suggestion

Susanne
 

Sharon,
At 2018-04-04 02:15 PM, Sharon Villines wrote:
On Apr 3, 2018, at 7:56 PM, Al Ludwick / NN4ZZ <al@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Sharon,
> Can you give a few examples of your groups and which one of the categories you listed would you have picked?

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.

The subtopics are examples and suggestions.  They are not definitive. 

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.

What lists are you referring to that are created by publishers with a view to markets?

-- Susanne


13261 - 13280 of 29701