Topics

locked categorisation

Ant No
 

Looking at the list of groups for interesting things I was struck how some topics have a large number of groups that bury the more niche, but still interesting groups. This makes those laborious to find.

If it were possible to exclude some topics while listing groups it would be easier to read through what remains. Conversely, if your interest is one of these group clusters you can read through just that.

Obvious candidates so far:

Trains/ railway/railroad of all types and sizes.

Amature/ ham radio

Dolls and related (doll clothes etc)

All things fabric knitting/quilting etc

Incredimail

Disability related Blind etc

Astronomy

Spirituality Inc religion/paranormal etc

Graphic arts other than incredimail

Arts other than graphic etc listed elsewhere.

Metal, wood and plastic working- casting/lathes/milling machines/3d printers/tools/machine shop etc

Cooking/ food related

Brewing and distilling

Philosophy

Science fiction

Literature not listed elsewhere

Music

Computing

Electronics

Science not listed elsewhere

Themed friendship groups, veterans, old co workers, local community etc

Strictly local, family networks etc.

Other not listed elsewhere.

I'm sure there are more but that's my first impression.

Group owners could be asked to choose one  category to belong to. This will resist the erosion of intent if groups were entered in multiple categories. Choose a core identity.

Eventually group owners could request the addition of new or sub categories. Second level to avoid delaying the first level.

This will make it easier for potential members to find groups of interest. Particularly for eclectics and synthesists who don't always know what they're looking for until they find it.

A Boolean search of categories to include or exclude when sorting the list of groups would be ideal.

The recent groups is a useful sort but swamped right now. The existing sorts should be able to be applied to the results of the category sort.

The top five are all pretty big the rest are in random order as they popped into mind.

I hope this will happen as soon as possible.

Regards

Ant👣


rich hurd
 

I’m not in favor of this.  

I’m an amateur radio operator that’s also a railfan, and of course I have an interest in computers and electronics (as I’m sure many ham’s do).  Plus I moderate a group of professionals that has nothing to do with any of these topics.  

I would view with distaste an effort to compel me to look at only a single pigeonhole.   

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:40 Ant No <cmpaqp1100@...> wrote:
Looking at the list of groups for interesting things I was struck how some topics have a large number of groups that bury the more niche, but still interesting groups. This makes those laborious to find.

If it were possible to exclude some topics while listing groups it would be easier to read through what remains. Conversely, if your interest is one of these group clusters you can read through just that.

Obvious candidates so far:

Trains/ railway/railroad of all types and sizes.

Amature/ ham radio

Dolls and related (doll clothes etc)

All things fabric knitting/quilting etc

Incredimail

Disability related Blind etc

Astronomy

Spirituality Inc religion/paranormal etc

Graphic arts other than incredimail

Arts other than graphic etc listed elsewhere.

Metal, wood and plastic working- casting/lathes/milling machines/3d printers/tools/machine shop etc

Cooking/ food related

Brewing and distilling

Philosophy

Science fiction

Literature not listed elsewhere

Music

Computing

Electronics

Science not listed elsewhere

Themed friendship groups, veterans, old co workers, local community etc

Strictly local, family networks etc.

Other not listed elsewhere.

I'm sure there are more but that's my first impression.

Group owners could be asked to choose one  category to belong to. This will resist the erosion of intent if groups were entered in multiple categories. Choose a core identity.

Eventually group owners could request the addition of new or sub categories. Second level to avoid delaying the first level.

This will make it easier for potential members to find groups of interest. Particularly for eclectics and synthesists who don't always know what they're looking for until they find it.

A Boolean search of categories to include or exclude when sorting the list of groups would be ideal.

The recent groups is a useful sort but swamped right now. The existing sorts should be able to be applied to the results of the category sort.

The top five are all pretty big the rest are in random order as they popped into mind.

I hope this will happen as soon as possible.

Regards

Ant👣


--

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” ― John F Kennedy

Duane
 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:40 AM, Ant No wrote:
Looking at the list of groups for interesting things I was struck how some topics have a large number of groups that bury the more niche, but still interesting groups. This makes those laborious to find.
Something similar was discussed long ago, https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/16659342 and https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/topic/16659594

Duane

Ant No
 

Hello Rich

You seem to miss the point being made.

No one wants to pigeonhole you. Rather enable you to find all the different groups that might interest your eclectic self.

A group not fitting any of the specific topics suggested would just be other as listed. One of the first groups I'd search through.

Or you could suggest a category.

It's not about importance it's just about practical ways to find all the groups that interest you.

You may love amateur radio but I'm neutral on it but forced to wade through group after group in the search for other things.

There is no doubt there are allready thousands of groups with many more to come.

It's unreasonable to expect people to wade through a single list for fear of missing a group they want.

I'm not judging anything. I just want a search method I can use without devoting days to it.

Practicality not ideology.

Ant No
 

Thank you Duane.

I will read that.

In advance I would point out that the sudden increase in size of the groups list is an important new variable.

RCardona
 

I disagree as well. . . categorizing groups is wholly unnecessary and too limiting.  

This is why there is a search query.   It is not unreasonable for users to review search pulls to find points of interest.  

Ant No
 

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

Ant No
 

Hello again Duane

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

As I understand it there are three main opinions.

A massively detailed hierarchy such as the dewy decimal.

20 or so broad categories.

A bottom up tagging system.

The greatest support seems to be for number two but mark favours number three.

I feel number one would be a lot of work and counterproductive in just making it easier to find things you might not know exist but appeal when you see them.

I favour number two myself.

In particular for group types that have large numbers of groups attached. Really, after reading through the most popular third of the whole list, the first five struck me as being a lot to read through if they're not what your looking for. That could change as the new groups come on line.

They may well be a large part of the two thirds classed as unpopular because they're new and not yet fully signed up or used.

A system based just on how many groups are in a category is practical and casts no judgement. If anything it's an affirmation of how popular the category is.

From what I've seen so far I could live with the top five of mine  plus other. I can slog through to a fair extent. The others were mostly ones I noticed to a lesser extent number wise or personal preferences.

Subject to change as all the new groups get fully functional.

The third option has had several years to organically materialise but didn't help me while I was wishing I could exclude some high instance group types while attempting an exhaustive search. That may be my ignorance but if so please enlighten me. Bearing in mind I don't always know what I want until I find it.

We are all one at some level of existance. I see you all as aspects of a greater whole that I am also a small part of. One of the groups I would never have thought to search for holds to the same belief. I found it, amongst others, only after great labour wading through the high interest areas.

The esoteric need not be occluded. Minorities matter.

Ant👣

ro-esp
 

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 11:14 PM, Ant No wrote:


As I understand it there are three main opinions.

A massively detailed hierarchy such as the dewy decimal.

20 or so broad categories.

A bottom up tagging system.

The greatest support seems to be for number two but mark favours number three.
So do I. Yahoogroups could have attracted a lot more users if the search had worked. What went wrong is that some porn-spammers created group after group with the same huge list of tags, and yahoo wasn't willing to do anything about it.

Do we need to have tag-lists approved by a human before the group can be used? Limit the amount of tags per group to 10 or 20?

groetjes, Ronaldo





I feel number one would be a lot of work and counterproductive in just making
it easier to find things you might not know exist but appeal when you see
them.

I favour number two myself.

In particular for group types that have large numbers of groups attached.
Really, after reading through the most popular third of the whole list, the
first five struck me as being a lot to read through if they're not what your
looking for. That could change as the new groups come on line.

They may well be a large part of the two thirds classed as unpopular because
they're new and not yet fully signed up or used.

A system based just on how many groups are in a category is practical and
casts no judgement. If anything it's an affirmation of how popular the
category is.

From what I've seen so far I could live with the top five of mine  plus
other. I can slog through to a fair extent. The others were mostly ones I
noticed to a lesser extent number wise or personal preferences.

Subject to change as all the new groups get fully functional.

The third option has had several years to organically materialise but didn't
help me while I was wishing I could exclude some high instance group types
while attempting an exhaustive search. That may be my ignorance but if so
please enlighten me. Bearing in mind I don't always know what I want until I
find it.

We are all one at some level of existance. I see you all as aspects of a
greater whole that I am also a small part of. One of the groups I would never
have thought to search for holds to the same belief. I found it, amongst
others, only after great labour wading through the high interest areas.

The esoteric need not be occluded. Minorities matter.

Ant👣

ro-esp
 

oops, forgot to trim there.

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


groetjes, Ronaldo

Ant No
 

Hello Ronaldo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond a bit tired. Sleepy now.

Goodnight.

Ant👣

Duane
 

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

Duane

Drew
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drew

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

Bob Bellizzi
 

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

Bob Bellizzi

Juulz
 

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

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

Ant No
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If implemented I may do more.

Ant👣

Ant No
 

Thank you again for your help Duane.

I see now the drop menu is just for topics.

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

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

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

Juulz
 

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

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

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

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.