Topics

locked Find Group listing #suggestion


Duane
 

I was playing around this morning and thought of a possible change on the Find Group pages.  It would be helpful to me if it stated whether a group was public or private.  I know it's easy to tell once I go to the groups home page, so this is definitely not an urgent need.


Duane



 

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

I was playing around this morning and thought of a possible change on the Find Group pages.  It would be helpful to me if it stated whether a group was public or private.  I know it's easy to tell once I go to the groups home page, so this is definitely not an urgent need.


Good idea, easy to fix. I've just pushed the change. It now displays whether archives are public or private, and if the group has restricted membership.

Thanks,
Mark 


Frances
 

Love that it shows how active the group is - “last post”.

All very useful.

Frances


Steve Weinberg
 

wouldn't most "private" groups not even want to be "findable"? They would want to simply operate on the system anonymously for the benefit of their members. They would not need or want to be discoverable by others.

Steve

================================

On Jan 16, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:

Love that it shows how active the group is - “last post”.

All very useful.

Frances


Frances
 

Hi Mark,

Do you need to change the label on the list of groups?
Some are restricted and private archives, but show up here in “Public Groups”.
I like that they show up in this list, though. 

Are there other groups that are “Private Groups” which won’t show up here?

Frances

On Jan 16 15, at 4:10 PM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:

Love that it shows how active the group is - “last post”.

All very useful.

Frances







Frances
 

Hi

If there is no special status for “private groups”, perhaps showing up in the directory of groups should be a tick box for the list-owner.

I would be happy for my private group, restricted archives to show up in the list. But I can see that some might not.

Frances

On Jan 16 15, at 4:19 PM, Steve Weinberg <steve.weinberg@...> wrote:

wouldn't most "private" groups not even want to be "findable"? They would want to simply operate on the system anonymously for the benefit of their members. They would not need or want to be discoverable by others.

Steve

================================


On Jan 16, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Frances <travel@...> wrote:

Love that it shows how active the group is - “last post”..

All very useful.

Frances










 

Steve,

wouldn't most "private" groups not even want to be "findable"?
Mine would.

I run a few very private (Yahoo) groups -- private in the sense that membership is rigorously restricted and the resources (messages, files, photos, etc.) are private (members only). Yet I want those groups to be findable by the people who qualify for membership. If I had their contact info already I might feel differently, but I need them to be able to find the groups because I don't know how to find them.

-- Shal


Cacky B
 

Mine would not want to be findable. The people who qualify for membership in groups that I moderate or own learn about us through other sources. They then request membership directly. We do not wish to be listed in any publicly available list.
Cacky

On 1/16/2015 3:33 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Steve,

wouldn't most "private" groups not even want to be "findable"?
Mine would.

I run a few very private (Yahoo) groups -- private in the sense that membership is rigorously restricted and the resources (messages, files, photos, etc.) are private (members only). Yet I want those groups to be findable by the people who qualify for membership. If I had their contact info already I might feel differently, but I need them to be able to find the groups because I don't know how to find them.

-- Shal




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


 

On 1/16/2015 1:33 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I run a few very private (Yahoo) groups -- private in the sense that
membership is rigorously restricted and the resources (messages, files,
photos, etc.) are private (members only). Yet I want those groups to be
findable by the people who qualify for membership. If I had their
contact info already I might feel differently, but I need them to be
able to find the groups because I don't know how to find them.
But - Steve is right. I am owner of a couple of groups - no longer, or
never, on Yahoo - where it is a closed group of people, and the only way
in is for someone who is a member propose or ask about adding another
person. We then discuss it - and since usually the person is known by
the other members anyway, unless someone has some serious objection,
we then have the original proposer write and ask if the person wants to
be included.

So, it should be an option to allow a private group to be visible in
searches or not.

dg


 

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:36 PM, CatWoman <diana@...> wrote:

So, it should be an option to allow a private group to be visible in
searches or not.

 
Already available. Groups can be listed or unlisted in the directory. Their archives can be public or private (if the group is unlisted, the archives are private).

Thanks,
Mark


Frances
 

Whoops! Sorry. I had forgotten.

I see it now in Settings, Privacy. (I had set mine up properly!)

So “Public Groups” is okay, I guess.
Should there be an extra bit of explanatory text? Unnecessary? Messy?

Frances

On Jan 16 15, at 8:10 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:36 PM, CatWoman <diana@...> wrote:

So, it should be an option to allow a private group to be visible in
searches or not.

 
Already available. Groups can be listed or unlisted in the directory. Their archives can be public or private (if the group is unlisted, the archives are private).

Thanks,
Mark


 

On 1/16/2015 5:10 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Already available. Groups can be listed or unlisted in the directory.
Their archives can be public or private (if the group is unlisted, the
archives are private).
Great!!!

Love it!

dg


 

Frances,

If there is no special status for "private groups", perhaps showing
up in the directory of groups should be a tick box for the list-owner.
I'd agree with this.

As a general principle I think unrelated effects should have separate controls. In this case, being listed or not in the directory has nothing to do with whether a group's archives are visible to non-members, and has nothing to do with how one becomes a member of the group.

I think that tying together and confounding these separate features under a single name, such as "private" only makes the product less flexible and more confusing. That's one of the many mistakes Yahoo Groups has made in recent years.

-- Shal


Duane
 

I checked it out this morning and I think it's perfect now.  I've been looking through the various groups to see if there were any of interest, but didn't want to join any more at the moment.  This way I know whether I should even try to check it out.


We want our groups listed in the directory so that folks can find us using a search, but we only allow members to access the messages.  Possibly interested folks can be anywhere in the world, so we don't always find them through personal contact.  We sometimes post personal information, like phone numbers or addresses to assist others, so private archives are important.


Thanks again,

Duane



Steve Weinberg
 

But, since we're not all computer geniuses, I suggest that when a person creates a private group the default be that the group is not listed in the public directory of groups and that archives are also private.

I have no problem with the group owner having the option then to change these defaults.

Steve

========================================

On Jan 17, 2015, at 2:40 AM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:

Frances,

If there is no special status for "private groups", perhaps showing
up in the directory of groups should be a tick box for the list-owner.
I'd agree with this.

As a general principle I think unrelated effects should have separate controls. In this case, being listed or not in the directory has nothing to do with whether a group's archives are visible to non-members, and has nothing to do with how one becomes a member of the group.

I think that tying together and confounding these separate features under a single name, such as "private" only makes the product less flexible and more confusing. That's one of the many mistakes Yahoo Groups has made in recent years.

-- Shal


 

Steve,

But, since we're not all computer geniuses, I suggest that when a person
creates a private group the default be that the group is not listed in
the public directory of groups and that archives are also private.
I think you already have that. The existing Create A Group page offers a Privacy option with three choices:

Listed in directory, publicly viewable archives
Listed in directory, private archives
Not listed in directory, private archives

I probably would have used two checkboxes rather than a drop-list with three of the four possibilities, but that's because I think that handling one concept at a time is generally easier than compound choices. That is:

|_| Listed in directory
|_| Archives viewable by non-members

To me seems simpler to read and comprehend.

-- Shal


Steve Weinberg
 

Well, instead of talking in the dark, tonight I started my own first Groups.io test group

So I agree with Shal. I selected "Not listed in directory, private archives" and that was that.


So fat mostly so good.

Steve

=========================

On Jan 18, 2015, at 2:01 AM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:

Steve,

But, since we're not all computer geniuses, I suggest that when a person
creates a private group the default be that the group is not listed in
the public directory of groups and that archives are also private.
I think you already have that. The existing Create A Group page offers a Privacy option with three choices:

Listed in directory, publicly viewable archives
Listed in directory, private archives
Not listed in directory, private archives

I probably would have used two checkboxes rather than a drop-list with three of the four possibilities, but that's because I think that handling one concept at a time is generally easier than compound choices. That is:

|_| Listed in directory
|_| Archives viewable by non-members

To me seems simpler to read and comprehend.

-- Shal


Nightowl >8#
 

Frances wrote:>>Are there other groups that are “Private Groups” which won’t show up here?

I hope so, because I just made my personal one, and I don't want it listed.

Brenda


Nightowl >8#
 

Steve wrote:>> I suggest that when a person creates a private group the default be that the group is not listed in the public directory of groups and that archives are also private. I have no problem with the group owner having the option then to change these defaults.<<


Currently, as it's set up, once a group is made Private archives it cannot be converted to public archives again.

Brenda


 

It would be nice to have a temporary 'beta' mode which could be switched from private to public, since it's not always clear which would be the best option until after a group has been built up a little bit. It's like being forced to name your child at conception with no option to legally change it once you've learned the sex. You don't necessarily want a group to be visible while it's being furnished with content, but it's pretty much your only option at the moment.

Perhaps it could be allowed as long as the owner was the only member, for a specific period of time, or could simply provide new members with a warning that anything posted to the group may eventually be made public. I know I would probably switch my group from private to public if I now had the option. I just went with the same settings as the Yahoo! Groups version for consistency.