Topics

moderated Meta Suggestion: preferences


Glenn Glazer
 

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another.

I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience.

At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it.

This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH.

Best,

Glenn
Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors.

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product. 


On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:

So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences of one sort or another.

I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience.

At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it.

This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH.

Best,

Glenn
Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors.

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bob Bellizzi
 

Ditto what "J" Catlady said but add lots more years and experiences.
Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer
--

Bob Bellizzi


Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/30/2019 11:50, J_Catlady wrote:
That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product.

If that's true, then the preference system is not designed correctly. The whole point is that the product is a variable superset of user preferences, that setting a preference one way for one group does not affect the setting of the preference some other way by some other group. Thus "the product" is not affected as a whole other than to accommodate as many different styles as possible. If groups.io sets in stone some sort of preference, then it loses all of the groups who prefer the preference some other way. So insisting on some setting being some particular way does detract from the product by walling off a potential user base.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


Glenn Glazer
 

On 8/30/2019 12:19, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer

Perhaps I am misreading this, but are you seriously suggesting that groups.io can't be improved? I agree that it is the best system out there, but anything can be made better, even the best thing available.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com


 

Yeah but we’re just a bunch of users expressing our preferences, ranging from most naive to most sophisticated points of view (I don’t lump myself in with either of those). All kinds of features are suggested here, ranging from clearly insanely useful to iffy (with, of course, Mark being the arbiter). We are not designing “the preference system” here. We’re asking for features ranging fro sorely needed to pie-in-the-sky to generally-bad-idea-for the product. I’m sure you agree with me in general that not every feature suggested in this forum should just be implemented willy nilly, no matter how objectively helpful or dead-weight, and just made an option. And Mark clearly understands that as well, hence he picks and chooses. Discussions here are just that: discussions. We’re not in a design meeting. 😀


On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:27 PM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:

On 8/30/2019 11:50, J_Catlady wrote:
That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product.

If that's true, then the preference system is not designed correctly. The whole point is that the product is a variable superset of user preferences, that setting a preference one way for one group does not affect the setting of the preference some other way by some other group. Thus "the product" is not affected as a whole other than to accommodate as many different styles as possible. If groups.io sets in stone some sort of preference, then it loses all of the groups who prefer the preference some other way. So insisting on some setting being some particular way does detract from the product by walling off a potential user base.

Best,

Glenn

--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


KWKloeber
 

Glenn. I support multi preferences.  Or just ignoring/living with personal preferences/naming conventions, etc. 
But when the menu board says “flavors” but underneath it isn’t flavors, but sizes of all  flavors,
And it’s verboten to use “sizes” twice because it’s used elsewhere (above drink prices) basic confusion reigns ~insert pun~ “across the board.” 
 Or you use cup, and dish, and container for the same object, or quart or 4-cup for the same amount (am I getting 1x32oz or 4x8oz ??) Well the point is obvious. Multiflavorcornfuzion. 
Especially to the customer who is the one that it’s the first time trying to make sense of the menu and there’s 30 customers waiting behind. So s/he throws up the hands and walks out mumbling WTF under the breath. 
It all makes perfect sense to the person who put the board together but possibly not to the customer. 
Has anyone ever gone thru a KFC drive thru and was actually able to figure out the options?
All I want is chicken cuz I can’t eat mashed pots when I’m driving — not all this mishmash on the menu. “Oh we can do that, ask for just chicken
Arrrrrgh!


KWKloeber
 

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:29 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
io can't be improved,
****
I didn't take Bob's comment that way at all -- just that gio is evolving and improving as it evolves  And sit back and enjoy the view..
I don't think that precludes developing excellent preferences about providing preferences, and I hope the range of available preferences do enlarge/become more ever more useful to all group users.  That said, as essentially an email exchange it may evolve to be the ultimate cat's meow, but as a pseudo forum I doubt it can reach a peer level with SimpleForum sites.


 

Funny about the food menu analogy. The best pizza place where I live (Berkeley) serves one kind of pizza each day and that’s it. The only choice you have to make is how many slices you want. (Also, one slice is really two there.:) 


On Aug 30, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:29 PM, Glenn Glazer wrote:
io can't be improved,
****
I didn't take Bob's comment that way at all -- just that gio is evolving and improving as it evolves  And sit back and enjoy the view..
I don't think that precludes developing excellent preferences about providing preferences, and I hope the range of available preferences do enlarge/become more ever more useful to all group users.  That said, as essentially an email exchange it may evolve to be the ultimate cat's meow, but as a pseudo forum I doubt it can reach a peer level with SimpleForum sites.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bob Bellizzi
 

Ken,
You perceived rightly, thank you.
While groups.io seems simple when you are conditioning a group to your needs, it is actually extremely complex.
And more often than not, what I want to do can be accomplished without change in the system by using alternative methods.
--

Bob Bellizzi