Topics

moderated Feature requests/Canny after two weeks


Chris Jones
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 07:46 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
However, GMF being a moderated group is what I find problematic. 
Why, exactly?

Chris


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:54 AM, RCardona wrote:
consolidating all functions to the beta group and "canning" Canny makes the most sense
Except for possibly canning Canny, which I support, and/or reverting to allowing bug reports in beta, which I would also support (but have no strong feelings about), that is almost certainly not going to happen. I believe (and hope) that help questions will always stay in another arena. GMF is too developed, and beta too dedicated to features rather than help, for GMF to go away. However, GMF being a moderated group is what I find problematic. 
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


RCardona
 

I concur, consolidating all functions to the beta group and "canning" Canny makes the most sense.

RC

On 12/26/19 12:02 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi All,

So, it seems that some people are using Canny to submit feature requests and that it can be a useful tool for doing so. I do see a few drawbacks:

- There are still a bunch of posts to beta that would be more appropriate instead as Canny feature requests.
- There is no notification of new posts to Canny on beta. So it can be difficult to know when new things are posted to Canny.
- People who don't run premium groups cannot post to Canny.

I can address the second issue with a custom email summary sent to beta on a regular basis, but that will require some development effort on my part. My main problem with Canny is with the first issue; people will still post feature requests on beta, and the discussion about those feature requests will still happen on beta.

I thought of another way we could address this, using just the beta group and hashtags. We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests (and maybe another for bugs). That would make it easy to address the first issue above; if someone posts a feature request without the correct hashtag, I can just add it. To view all feature requests, just filter on the hashtag. The one main thing that doesn't provide is the ability to sort by popularity (ie likes). However, I could add something like that to the search results page (he says without thinking it through completely).

(Also, I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc)

What do you think? I'm willing to continue using Canny if you all think it's a good solution. Or we could switch to something like my proposal. Or something else if someone has a better idea.

Thanks,
Mark (still on vacation)


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:27 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
either non-moderation or NuM a condition of that.
Or at least a very strong suggestion.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


 

I feel very strongly about GMF being set to NuM *if* it is going to continue to be the officially mandated help group for groups.io (which you can't really argue that it's not, even given the existence and simultaneous mentioning of Group_Help). I appreciate that Mark can't mandate how GMF runs itself, but he *can* decide whether to officially ad routinely direct his members/clients/customers there for help. And he has the power make either non-moderation or NuM a condition of that.
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


 

Group Help doesn't really have critical mass.


On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:22 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:54 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
if GMF stays the "officially mandated" help group
Group_Help also offers to help other users and is NuM.  Mark has suggested both that and GMF as sources of assistance.

Duane


--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Duane
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:54 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
if GMF stays the "officially mandated" help group
Group_Help also offers to help other users and is NuM.  Mark has suggested both that and GMF as sources of assistance.

Duane


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:41 AM, Bärbel Stephenson wrote:
I really like the idea of having 3 separate groups for those various strands.
One problem is "enforcement" (or "encouragement") of disallowing basic help questions and bugs to be posted on beta. This occurs frequently and nobody likes playing cop and telling people, especially naive, well-meaning newcomers, to "take it to GMF."

Another problem is that whereas beta is run by groups.io (i.e., Mark), GMF is not. I assume that if there is a separate group for bugs it would be have to run by Mark. I don't belong to GMF or Help because of moderation (and other) issues. If there were an "official" (run by groups.io) or unmoderated Help group I would probably join. I do peek into GMF from time to time (since it is public), see misinformation sometimes being propagated there, and wish that I could make the corrections. But I don't because I don't belong to moderated groups (etc.). So I would appreciate it if some thought could go into who would run these various groups, and if GMF stays the "officially mandated" help group, that Mark specifies that it be unmoderated or, at minimum, NuM instead of moderated.
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Bärbel Stephenson
 

I really like the idea of having 3 separate groups for those various strands.
 
As the owner of a couple of free groups (I transferred my groups to io when it was still free, yahoo group owner for 15 years), I feel that I have plenty of experience, but feel shut out with Canny.
 
Barbara 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
From: Duane
Date: 12/26/2019 17:22:48
Subject: Re: [beta] Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
 


I would recommend limiting suspected bugs to support (or a user-to-user help group) though.  I think having the 3 separate resources would help us all - beta for suggestions, support for actual bugs, GMF or Group_Help for assistance.

Duane
_._,_._,_


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:22 AM, Duane wrote:
I think having the 3 separate resources would help us all - beta for suggestions, support for actual bugs, GMF or Group_Help for assistance.
Yes, please try not to allow beta to be overrun with help requests again.
I also wonder about the name "beta." Maybe should be renamed "gamma." :)
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


Duane
 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 11:03 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I thought of another way we could address this, using just the beta group and hashtags. We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests (and maybe another for bugs). That would make it easy to address the first issue above; if someone posts a feature request without the correct hashtag, I can just add it. To view all feature requests, just filter on the hashtag. The one main thing that doesn't provide is the ability to sort by popularity (ie likes). However, I could add something like that to the search results page (he says without thinking it through completely).
 
(Also, I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc)
 
What do you think?
I like the idea of using this group for everything.  It keeps it all in one place, thus easier to follow.  And with the addition of (moderator only) #closed, #planned, etc, it would duplicate much of the functionality of canny, as well as removing that expense.  (BTW, canny still unceremoniously dumps owners of unpaid groups back to the site without a message when clicking any of the Login links.)

I would recommend limiting suspected bugs to support (or a user-to-user help group) though.  I think having the 3 separate resources would help us all - beta for suggestions, support for actual bugs, GMF or Group_Help for assistance.

Duane


 

On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 09:03 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
and maybe another for bugs
Are you saying that bug reports would start going to beta again instead of to support? I'm all for this, simply because sometimes the difference between a bug and a feature is unclear, and also because sometimes I come across a bug and wonder how widespread it is and whether others have experienced it. In the "old days," there was a "bug" hashtag, so this would be like old times. 

I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc
I like this idea because you could have more statuses than are available on canny (e..g, "not in a million years would this ever be considered" ;) (or something showing that the suggestion will not be implemented, it's closed to comments, etc.) (I supposed "closed" on canny incorporates both "done" and "won't be done, forget about it"?)

There are some aspects of canny that I like, but as the suggestions list grows, it seems like it would get unwieldy. So I would favor going back to beta overall. 
 
--
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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of groups.io as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.


 

Hi All,

So, it seems that some people are using Canny to submit feature requests and that it can be a useful tool for doing so. I do see a few drawbacks:

- There are still a bunch of posts to beta that would be more appropriate instead as Canny feature requests.
- There is no notification of new posts to Canny on beta. So it can be difficult to know when new things are posted to Canny.
- People who don't run premium groups cannot post to Canny.

I can address the second issue with a custom email summary sent to beta on a regular basis, but that will require some development effort on my part. My main problem with Canny is with the first issue; people will still post feature requests on beta, and the discussion about those feature requests will still happen on beta.

I thought of another way we could address this, using just the beta group and hashtags. We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests (and maybe another for bugs). That would make it easy to address the first issue above; if someone posts a feature request without the correct hashtag, I can just add it. To view all feature requests, just filter on the hashtag. The one main thing that doesn't provide is the ability to sort by popularity (ie likes). However, I could add something like that to the search results page (he says without thinking it through completely).

(Also, I would add 'status' hashtags, like #closed, #planned, etc)

What do you think? I'm willing to continue using Canny if you all think it's a good solution. Or we could switch to something like my proposal. Or something else if someone has a better idea.

Thanks,
Mark (still on vacation)