Topics

locked categorisation

 

All,

This topic has run its course. I'm locking it.

Mark

Bob Bellizzi
 

That's just emotional nonsense.
Is that your usual final argument?  Everyone else is just too emotional and spouting nonsense?
Obviously you don't scan replies very well.

The truth that they would be uninteresting to most people doesn't mean they're trying to hide from everyone else.
We never said they were trying to hide.   That seems to be your impression.
I simply said that the purpose and intent of most groups is just none of your business.
Those that wish to proslytize will do so.
Those who don't, won't and if that sticks in your craw, sorry about that.

-

Bob Bellizzi

Ant No
 

On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 10:12 AM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
This isn't anything like ebay or any other sales platform.


It's not about sales it's about effective ways to manage data. eBay does that because it boosts sales but the principle is the same regardless of your motive. Your completely missing the point by focusing on the sales element.

Many groups are highly specialized and are absolutely none of anyone else's business.
Many groups are highly specialized; diseases, advocacies, and other types.  Again, if you don't exactly fit, they don't wish you nose into what they do.


Most groups are not the freemasons or some other secret society. They are not trying to hide and have nothing to hide. You can't make that assertion for them. Unless you join there's precious little to see other than if you want to join. So no one's nosing into anything. That's just emotional nonsense.

The truth that they would be uninteresting to most people doesn't mean they're trying to hide from everyone else.

More groups want to expand membership than not. As evidenced by the fact they are open to new members  The few that don't are closed to join or invite only.

I wouldn't want to join most groups. But I want to find the ones I do. I have joined one of the specialist disease  groups because I have it. Otherwise I would have just browsed past it. I couldn't have joined it if I hadn't found it by browsing. Again not something I would have searched for. I don't dwell on my disease.




Regarding postal codes; again, some groups cover the world or a single country, one language or over 100.
And, as mentioned pointedly previously, what business is it of your's or anyone else?


I have no idea what your talking about I've never mentioned postal codes. I've mentioned that some groups are strictly local as they're amongst the ones I don't want to see while I'm browsing. Precisely because they're not relevant to me doh!

Anything I want to make my business is my business. That's not for you to dictate. I'll decide what interests me and each group can choose for themselves if they want to have me. That's none of your business because you're not me and you're not those groups.

Are you making these suggestions to enable some kind of information harvesting?

LOL paranoid much? How would that work exactly? The only information worth harvesting would be other people's names and contact details. Nothing I'm suggesting would make that possible.

Wake up to the fact that what I want is exactly what I've stated clearly and repeatedly. A browse function that's practical to use because I can exclude areas I know im not interested in.

I can allready browse all the groups. If there were some imaginary data worth harvesting from what that shows there'd be a script for it.

People love to browse. They do it in all walks of life for many different reasons. It's in our nature to enjoy looking through things for the things we like or want.

Why are you finding that such a difficult concept to grasp or accept?

Seriously, resistance to change is a natural quality in some people but when that change doesn't take anything away from what you allready have why so entrenched? You may not need a particular feature but if someone else does why do you care?

Ant👣

Bob Bellizzi
 

This isn't anything like ebay or any other sales platform.
Many groups are highly specialized and are absolutely none of anyone else's business.
Many groups are highly specialized; diseases, advocacies, and other types.  Again, if you don't exactly fit, they don't wish you nose into what they do.
Regarding postal codes; again, some groups cover the world or a single country, one language or over 100.
And, as mentioned pointedly previously, what business is it of your's or anyone else?
Are you making these suggestions to enable some kind of information harvesting?

--

Bob Bellizzi

Ant No
 

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 01:32 PM, ro-esp wrote:
How is it a problem if some
dudes have a massive following, and how exactly do you want to solve it?


The problem is that if a few topics generate lots of groups you have to wade through them while browsing. Excluding chosen topics from your browsing list would solve that
How would your system help you find groups you don't even know you want to find?

By letting me browse lists with some large group catagories removed
Do you want lists of groups sorted by how mainstream or fringe they are?If so, how do you measure mainstream-ness?

No. I want obvious existing broad categories that contain a lot of groups to be, well, grouped so that I can include or exclude them as I choose when I browse. I've repeated several times that the only criteria for forming a catagory is that it includes a large number of existing groups. Purely on the numbers.

Everything else can be in an all the rest catagory. I don't feel everything has to have a special catagory, only if there are a large number of groups in a subject.

Ithe feeling I've missed something crucial

I hope I've clarified that for you now.

I think I've demonstrated I'm not adverse to some wading.your personalpreference matters little here. What matters is that prospective members can easily find the groups they want to join.


I was directly responding to your comment there would still be some wading to do. I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world who likes to browse. Within reason. 

The fact is a search can never tell you if there is some interesting group you've failed to pull, while browsing can definitively tell you that you've seen all the ones you haven't excluded.

Finding the group you want to join is exactly what I'm trying to improve. You will still have all the search facilites you have now but with the additional option of a manual browse made practical by excluding some large catagories from your browsing list.

It's an additional feature that takes away nothing from the existing system. I've repeated this quite a lot now.

Browsing can reveal what searches miss and what you would never know to search for.

It's pretty basic stuff. There's a reason eBay has catagories as well as a search engine. It works better than a search engine alone. They really really care about what works because that's how they make money. Pretty sure they know what they're doing


Asto the other message: I am not saying false tagging is an ancient game.


It is an ancient game and you mentioned that in reference to yahoo groups and porn scammers.

Ant👣

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
I'm actually trying to get away to my new groups
?

I belong to other groups I like to spend time reading and responding to.  I only have so much time and this was just a routine feature request.

You would find it by doing a search for a tag that the owner/moderator put in the description


You've missed the point I already mentioned. That would not work because as one of my very many interests it was not something I would have ever thought to search for. I had to find it by browsing. Also it had no tags.


I'm not sure there can be a system that does...without sacrificing your privacy to "artificial intelligence" that is
The one I suggest would have facilitated my search by removing a big chunk of what I was not looking for. A search cannot do it but browsing can.

So you want to go from "not knowing whether a group exists" to "knowing in what catagory it is in?

Not exactly. I want to be able to exclude large catagories from the list so I can browse through the remainder. It may seem a subtle difference but it's an important one.

Let me give an example: suppose you have a group about lesbian cats in Papua New Guinea. Do you want people to find it under "pets" , "LGTBIA+" or "travel-->PNG"?Wouldn't three tags "lesbian" "cats" and "PNG" be far more efficient (as long as nobody abuses the tags)?


Lol that's so niche it doesn't need a catagory. Perhaps pets/animals will have enough groups to deserve a catagory after the moves are over.

Remember I only want catagories for topics that generate large numbers of groups and only so I can exclude them from my browsing list.

Radio and trains for example both have a huge number of groups that I don't want to have to browse through to find ones I do find interesting.

ro-esp
 

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 05:01 AM, Ant No wrote:


On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:


Being able to exclude searchterms would be nice, but 20 categories of a
thousand groups each
would still leave a lot of wading to do (and I expect groups.io to become
significantly bigger).
Agreed Ronaldo. However the numbers are not evenly distributed. Some cats have
a massive following. That's the problem.
I assume you are not referring to the meowing kind here. How is it a problem if some
dudes have a massive following, and how exactly do you want to solve it?

How would your system help you find groups you don't even know you want to find?

Do you want lists of groups sorted by how mainstream or fringe they are?
If so, how do you measure mainstream-ness?

I get the feeling I've missed something crucial

I think I've demonstrated I'm not adverse to some wading.
Your personal preference matters little here. What matters is that prospective members
can easily find the groups they want to join.

As to the other message: I am not saying false tagging is an ancient game. I am saying
we need a way to punish those who do it. We need a way to report it, and if they keep
doing it their group(s) should be dissolved. Maybe we even need someone to review
the tags and approve them before the group becomes active.

groetjes, Ronaldo

Ant No
 

I suppose it boils down to if you are the kind of person who likes to browse the shelves in a library rather than just ask for a specific book.

I've been doing that since I was ten years old so I do like to browse. Books were my first love (technically comics came first). Books and the two young librarians I was too shy and insecure to talk to much, other than to get my books stamped 😊

Ant👣

Ant No
 

Ronaldo, I'm not ignoring you. I answered you in lots of little replies. I didn't realise that's bad form here so they got deleted.

I'm still working out the small differences in function here but I think I can do you a one message inline reply later when I have some more time.

Ant👣

Ant No
 

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:10 AM, Bob Buxton wrote:
I hope this would address the OP's aims, be more flexible and be consistent with the use of hashtags for categorization across the web


If groups used them consistently, didn't abuse them and I could use Boolean operators then maybe. As Ronaldo pointed out tag and keyword abuse is an old game. Harder to moderate than a choose a single cat system.

I think across the web overstates it a bit. Hashtags are relatively new. Heavily focused on social media but admittedly spreading, mostly by the efforts of people trying to sell things. Or so it seems to me.

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:20 PM, RCardona wrote:
You fail to appreciate the power of groups.io's search function.  You may want to learn how to use it, rather than advocate for the addition of an unnecessary categorization element to it.  

In the group search function, a user may add any number of descriptive keywords that will filter down the results.  There is no need to add boolean search operations.  Simply add a 2nd, 3rd, 4th. . . . etc. . . keyword with a space in between the keywords; and the search function will drill down the results pull.


Yes, I understand how a multi keyword search works. It's a standard function of all search engines. Trust me, you may not but, I do need a way to exclude terms and that's Boolean operators. They were invented for a reason. Not because no one's as clever as Mark and didn't realise they were unnecessary.

You seen to have missed the part where I said I don't always know what I'm looking for until I find it. I did give an example. A real one that happened.

You'll still be able to do things your way. Why do you care if there's another way too. Why want to control other people's choices? I don't want to remove any of yours.

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
I'm not sure there can be a system that does...without sacrificing your privacy to "artificial intelligence" that is. 


Well the system I propose does. With our  intelligence not AI. It's just a matter of being able to sort the list better so you have smaller chunks to wade through. That's the entire point of the proposal.

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
Being able to exclude searchterms would be nice, but 20 categories of a thousand groups each
would still leave a lot of wading to do (and I expect groups.io to become significantly bigger).


Agreed Ronaldo. However the numbers are not evenly distributed. Some cats have a massive following. That's the problem. I think I've demonstrated I'm not adverse to some wading.

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:
you would find it by doing a search for a tag that the owner/moderator put in the description.

That assumes I know I want to find it. As I said I didn't and wouldn't have thought to.

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:30 PM, Juulz wrote:
Determining the correct word choice for each category would be a monumental task in and of itself.

Not really Juulz. Most if the cats are deliberately broad and self evident. Differently enabled is the answer allready out there for the one valid point you make. Not a mammoth task at all.

Getting hung up on semantics kinda misses the point.

Ant No
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:15 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
I would suggest that this is for those who wish to do so.
I'm sure some groups would rather remain anonymous


If that's true Bob it would be easy enough to have an anon cat which can't be searched or viewed by any means. Currently that would be an invite only group and you can still find them at the moment but not join.

Ant No
 

Drew

It's not either or. You can do both. They're not exactly official cats. They reflect what's actually there in the 7000 groups I looked through.

To you the exact kind of radio group you are is important and you can use keywords and tags to define this. To anyone uninterested in radio it's just one big lump with a massive following that buries niche interest groups

Being able to exclude that entire category would be very helpful. The cats are broad on purpose  and based purely  on large group numbers.

A search presumes you have a good idea of what you want to find and that the keywords or tags you use match the ones the group owner used.

Cats and searches are like catapillers and butterflies. They do different things well.

Bob Buxton
 

In addition to @drew's excellent suggestion for a keyword section in the group description I would also like to propose that group owners include a Hashtag section in their group descriptions with as many (or few) tags as they feel are helpful in identifying the groups areas of interest (e.g. #politics #UK #BRexit)

This would be immediately usable via the find group search but, in time, I would hope that groups.io would add a find group by hashtag function similar to the find message by #hashtags function that we already have within groups and show how many groups there are for each tag and allow filtering of the group list as tags are selected.

I hope this would address the OP's aims, be more flexible and be consistent with the use of hashtags for categorization across the web
--
Bob

RCardona
 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 03:33 PM, Ant No wrote:
Well, objectively, you can't call something wholly unnecessary when there are many thousands of of groups to get through.

The search function is fine if you are on rails and know what you want to find. But strolling through the landscape to see what unanticipated wonder you stumble across also has merit.

An important point is that you can choose not to use it and include all categories in your sort or search. So you lose nothing while others gain something. It limits nothing and adds flexibility.

It's about the greatest choice for the greatest number. You can still do things your way. Those that want to can do it another way.

Ant
You fail to appreciate the power of groups.io's search function.  You may want to learn how to use it, rather than advocate for the addition of an unnecessary categorization element to it.  

In the group search function, a user may add any number of descriptive keywords that will filter down the results.  There is no need to add boolean search operations.  Simply add a 2nd, 3rd, 4th. . . . etc. . . keyword with a space in between the keywords; and the search function will drill down the results pull.  Mark has done a great job making the search function a unique phenomenal asset on groups.io.

ro-esp
 

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:25 AM, Ant No wrote:


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?
you would find it by doing a search for a tag that the owner/moderator put in the description.

Being able to exclude searchterms would be nice, but 20 categories of a thousand groups each
would still leave a lot of wading to do (and I expect groups.io to become significantly bigger).

BTW a tag system still would require some administration, as abusers of tags need to be dealt with


I can't favour any system that doesn't facilitate finding the obscure group
who wants like minds to find them.
I'm not sure there can be a system that does...without sacrificing your privacy to "artificial intelligence" that is
.

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.
So you want to go from "not knowing whether a group exists" to "knowing in which category it should be"?

Let me give an example: suppose you have a group about lesbian cats in Papua New Guinea. Do you want
people to find it under "pets" , "LGTBIA+" or "travel-->PNG"?
Wouldn't three tags "lesbian" "cats" and "PNG" be far more efficient (as long as nobody abuses the tags)?


A science fiction author once wrote that the future needed eclectic synthesists who could connect the dots.
I'll look up what that is.


groetjes, Ronaldo