Topics

locked Seeding groups


 

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content.

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.


Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

In reply to this, my group doesn't have many members (5 at the moment), but we have a lot of topics and really a lot of emails.  Yet, we are still rated lower than groups who have more members, but no or only one topic and no or very few emails.

I think groups are better being grouped in categories as to what type of group a person is interested in joining.

I am hoping that this beta groups is not just for technical topics.

Cherrill
think purple and smile!


On Oct 30, 2014, at 8:13 AM, walkraft@... wrote:

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content.

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.



 

coffeechocolatechitchat would probably deserve to be featured under my suggestion since it appears to be the most (only) active organic group, apart from those with automated posts. The only reason why I didn't mention it was because your archive is non-public, so I can't personally vouch for the content.


Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

I am just trying to say that if someone is wanting to join a specific type of group, ie friends, pets, technical, whatever; they may not want to scroll through that many pages to find whether there is the type of group they want or not.  
Our little group will remain small because that is the way we want it; and it doesn't matter if it is featured or not; but if it ends up on page 99 or something, a person looking for our type of group will never find it.
However, the 'powers that be' will make the decision on how to categorize groups.

Cherrill



On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, walkraft@... wrote:

coffeechocolatechitchat would probably deserve to be featured under my suggestion since it appears to be the most (only) active organic group, apart from those with automated posts. The only reason why I didn't mention it was because your archive is non-public, so I can't personally vouch for the content.



Cherrill <cdjamieson@...>
 

I have just found out that there are groups here that have many many different topics so to categorize them by my suggestion would not work.
I was just going by my own experience with groups, so this is a moot point.
sorry
Cherrill
think purple and smile!


On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Cherrill <cdjamieson@...> wrote:

I am just trying to say that if someone is wanting to join a specific type of group, ie friends, pets, technical, whatever; they may not want to scroll through that many pages to find whether there is the type of group they want or not.  
Our little group will remain small because that is the way we want it; and it doesn't matter if it is featured or not; but if it ends up on page 99 or something, a person looking for our type of group will never find it.
However, the 'powers that be' will make the decision on how to categorize groups.

Cherrill



On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, walkraft@... wrote:

coffeechocolatechitchat would probably deserve to be featured under my suggestion since it appears to be the most (only) active organic group, apart from those with automated posts. The only reason why I didn't mention it was because your archive is non-public, so I can't personally vouch for the content.




David P. Dillard
 

As I pointed out to Cherrill, libraries have never had a problem with this. Both the Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal classification systems have call number ranges for what is termed "general" subject sources such as encyclopedias like the Wikipedia or magazines like Time or Newsweek. Words like diverse could be used in a list of subject areas for a discussion group services subject categories.

More words like diverse can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/kcq7hfp

..

..



Sincerely,
David Dillard
Temple University
(215) 204 - 4584
jwne@...

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, Cherrill wrote:

I have just found out that there are groups here that have many many different topics so to categorize them by
my suggestion would not work.I was just going by my own experience with groups, so this is a moot point.
sorry
Cherrill
think purple and smile!
On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Cherrill <cdjamieson@...> wrote:
I am just trying to say that if someone is wanting to join a specific type of group, ie friends, pets,
technical, whatever; they may not want to scroll through that many pages to find whether there is the type of
group they want or not. ï¿œOur little group will remain small because that is the way we want it; and it doesn't
matter if it is featured or not; but if it ends up on page 99 or something, a person looking for our type of
group will never find it.
However, the 'powers that be' will make the decision on how to categorize groups.
Cherrill
On Oct 30, 2014, at 9:02 AM, @casebash wrote:
coffeechocolatechitchat would probably deserve to be featured under my suggestion since it appears to be the
most (only) active organic group, apart from those with automated posts. The only reason why I didn't mention it
was because your archive is non-public, so I can't personally vouch for the content.


 

Walkraft,

Thank you! Your passion and desire to help are awesome. 

I approached Groups.io as a project that would most likely grow slowly. It's in a field with established competitors, and at first blush, many people would say it's not 'new and sexy' (I disagree of course). And I'm ok with it growing slowly, at first, so that I can get the bugs out, smooth out the rough edges, and add needed missing features. So, I'm not disappointed that there aren't many public groups right now, as I'm heads down fixing and adding features.

That said, I've been thinking about ways to increase engagement. I think your idea of seeded groups is interesting, but I'm weary of having groups that look like they're sponsored by management, because I think that might deter other people from starting similar groups ("well, we can't compete with Groups.io themselves"). I'd be curious about how others feel about that.

In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms. Perhaps instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set of tags for their groups. I'm much more a fan of bottom-up organizational structures than top-down taxonomies. They scale better and, I think, can be more accurate. What do you think about this?

One thing I don't think Groups.io does a very good job with right now is helping group owners promote their groups. We display widgets to post to Twitter and Facebook right after you create a group, but that's about it. Perhaps I can make those more visible. If there are other ways we can help group owners promote their groups, please let me know.

Also, I've been banging my head with trying to think of ways to make moving groups from Yahoo and Google over to Groups.io more easily. The best I've come up with so far is creating a mechanism where we subscribe a special email address to the Yahoo/Google group. Then we post a message to the group saying "Reply to this message to be subscribed to the new Groups.io group". But that's clunky, to say the least. And I don't see a way to move archives over. If anyone has any thoughts about this, I'd appreciate it.

So that's where my head's at. I could be wrong about all of this, and if I am, I hope everyone here convinces me so. :-)

And please keep suggesting ways to improve the service!!!


Thanks,
Mark


On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:13 AM, <walkraft@...> wrote:

Currently, updates and beta are the only public groups of any note. Since I would like to see this platform take off, I would like to make a suggestion about how this could occur.

Instead of the default tab of groups being "Most popular", I would suggest temporarily making the default a new "Featured" tab instead. Featured would include the updates and beta groups, but also some generic groups that you create yourself, such as "Linux", "Apple", "Startups", "Programming", or "Web Development". By making these the most prominent displayed groups, people would be more likely to join them. The groups should be chosen to be the groups that members are most likely to join. If any public groups start to succeed organically, then they could be added to featured as well. Regardless, having the fourth group in the list being "Poop" isn't a good look. I would also suggest promoting this set of initial seed groups via your mailing list.

At the start, you should be able to handle moderation of these groups yourself, but once they take off you should be able to pass moderation onto the community members. Hopefully this would be enough to get the Groups.io community started.

I would be willing to join these groups and make a few posts so that they at least have some content..

Potential issues

1. Mightn't this make the site unwelcoming to those who aren't programmers?

I imagine there would other topics for which you could create default groups, but I could only think of programming one's off the top of my head. Also, the nice aspect of the featured tab is that it enables you to promote groups in order to expand the audience of the site to different kinds of people.

2. Wouldn't it be better for groups to form organically?

As soon as some groups do form organically, then they could be moved on top of the featured tab or the featured tab could be removed. Furthermore, the ability to create sub-communities mitigates many of the issues. If a "Programming" community is too broad, then they can change their focus to general programming questions and shift questions on specific languages to sub-communities such as Java, C++ or PHP.

-------------------------

Anyway, I just thought I'd throw this suggestion out there because I'd love to see this product gain more traction.



 

Mark,

That said, I've been thinking about ways to increase engagement. I
think your idea of seeded groups is interesting, but I'm weary of
having groups that look like they're sponsored by management, ...
*wary* - or perhaps you _are_ simply weary. ;-)

I agree with you about starting "sponsored" groups. Better to find ways to recruit subject-matter enthusiasts to create "organic" groups.

In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms.
Perhaps instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set
of tags for their groups.
Yup. Often a group fits more than one category, or in a select subcategory that isn't in the taxonomy (yet).

I like the idea of tagging better, especially if there's a facile way to suggest existing tags and provide tag descriptions while the group manager is adding tags. On the other side of the coin (a user looking for a group) something like a tag cloud could provide a way of exploring related tags (tags that are used together in more groups are more closely related than tags that occur together in fewer groups).

Also, I've been banging my head with trying to think of ways to make
moving groups from Yahoo and Google over to Groups.io more easily.
... Then we post a message to the group saying "Reply to this message
to be subscribed to the new Groups.io group".
Your existing sign-up mechanism is so easy to use that I'm not sure you need to do anything beyond letting the Yahoo or Google Group managers post the Groups.io URL or +subscribe address themselves.

Easier still may be for the Yahoo or Google Group manager to make use of your one-time Add fee - but that would depend on the relationship between each group manager and his/her members. Not all such relationships are friendly enough for a unilateral action like that to be welcomed by the members.

And I don't see a way to move archives over.
I think this has to be done member by member, to avoid privacy and copyright concerns. And it probably needs to be both-ways voluntary. That is, it may be that the Groups.io group manager needs to designate which Yahoo or Google groups(s) may have content migrated into their Groups.io group. And then each member of the Groups.io group would have to elect to have their own content migrated from the designated group(s).

To make this as easy as possible for the member, the Groups.io manager would likely need to create a "migration" account in the target Yahoo or Google group, and maybe give it moderator access if needed to access the necessary metadata along with the member content (I think that would be necessary in a Yahoo Group, not sure about a Google group).

The alternative, asking the member to provide Groups.io with their Yahoo/Google sign-in credentials, fails utterly for "email only" members - those without an owning account - which happen to be the majority of my Yahoo group members.

Clearly, I think, ownership of the content must transfer correctly; and that I think is handled by having each Groups.io member authorize the transfer of his/her own content, identified as such by matching email address. That may require that Groups.io grow a mechanism for users to specify and validate "alternate" addresses that they own; in case they can't use or change the address used in the Yahoo or Google group.

I don't know what to say about the other metadata that goes with the content. Primarily that would be the date/time the content was contributed to the group - it would be nice if that was preserved. But there most likely a raft of other details for the devil to be hiding in.

What such a migration capability implies for sorting/searching the Groups.io content I don't know. Maybe there's a use for #tagging the migrated content to identify its original origin.

-- Shal


 

Hi Mark,

There are definitely some advantages to growing slowly, but I suspect that the growth of this service would still take significant time even if you were to aggressively promote Groups.io. At the moment, a significant number of people who would be willing to join public groups sign up, click find groups, discover that there is nothing there and then leave and then never come back. Or perhaps they decide to come back in a month or two and if nothing is still there, they are likely to give up or forget about it. So there is a significant opportunity cost of the current situation.

I wonder if the existence of seeded groups would discourage people forming groups more than a lack of users on the service. I think the priorities of people starting a new public group are firstly, is there anyone on this site who might join my group, secondly, is this a good platform to host my group on and, much further down the list, is there a "similar" official group. I mean, the existence of an official Web Development group is likely to make it easier for someone create a jQuery group because it brings a bunch of web developers together into a space where they can talk to each other and agree that jQuery discussion has grown to the point that it requires its own group. Secondly, if someone has their own vision of how they would run a web development group, why not join as a member and apply to become the moderator once the group takes off? If they are later selected/elected as a moderator, then they have had their audience built for them.

Alternatively, if someone is intending to bring a pre-existing group, then they are likely to be less concerned about competition than about how easy it is to migrate over and how Groups.io features better meet their needs. If the group has a strong community, then they shouldn't be threatened by official involvement in a very few seed groups that ends as soon as the group reaches critical mass.

In order to get this community started, only 4 or 5 groups would need to be seeded. These groups would only be featured so long as there weren't any general interest organic groups with higher amounts of engagement. I suspect that these groups could gain a minimal userbase from just being featured for a few weeks. There wouldn't need to be a flashing banner proclaiming that these groups are non-organic, just a post in the group itself explaining that the group was officially created and how it is going to be run/transition over to community ownership. As soon as these groups are passed over to the community, the whole issue of discouragement ceases to be an issue. No-one will care that a group was at some stage official. The only thing that would cause people to feel threatened would be if you planned to keep control of these groups because then you would have an incentive to use the advantages of the platform to ensure that the official group succeeded and they would be worried that you might try to compete with their group next. Furthermore, people coming on board after these official groups exist will take their existence for granted. No-one complained about StackOverflow or Superuser or Server Fault when StackExchange opened up their platform (but you can be pretty sure that whoever founded Apple StackExchange would have if SuperUser had been created after).

...

Anyway, it may be worth noting that the idea of featured groups and the idea of official groups are two separate ideas. I would suggest that featured should be manually curated at the start to avoid groups like Poop showing up and to allow you to prioritise groups that appeal to a broader audience. Alternatively, "Featured" could even be a formula that took into account number of users, number of posts and last post. If you need help coming up with an algorithm, my field of study in university was mathematics, so I could create a formula to match your requirements.

- Chris


 

A few further points,

In terms of categorisation, I agree with that tags tend to be a better solution
...

Replying to an email address to subscribe is a really nice solution. It doesn't require the user to visit a separate website, it doesn't require them to manually create an account or add their email address. These are minor things, but will significantly increase the number of members who decide to come over to the new group. I would also suggest that it might be worthwhile to temporarily make directly adding a free feature in order to entice groups to migrate over.

Also, it might be worthwhile seeing how your competitors handle migration. I performed a search for "migrate from google groups". Groupspaces allows you to import a .csv from your group (http://help.groupspaces.com/customer/portal/articles/68464-migrate-from-google-groups-and-import-your-mailing-list). At least in 2009, John Resig found that the only way to export messages was to perform an IMAP dump from his email account or to screenscrape the site (http://ejohn.org/blog/google-groups-is-dead/).

...

@Shal: Why does each member need to authorise the transfer of their messages? What the difference between moving mailing list providers and moving web hosts, so long as the new host offers reasonable protection for users privacy? Certain groups may contain a higher degree of confidential content and this caution may be warranted, but these groups should accept that if someone wants to search the old messages that they will have to search the old group.


ro-esp
 

markf@corp.groups.io sendis:

Walkraft,

Thank you! Your passion and desire to help are awesome.

I approached Groups.io as a project that would most likely grow slowly.
It's in a field with established competitors, and at first blush, many
people would say it's not 'new and sexy' (I disagree of course).
I disagree with you. It doesn't have to be "new, modern and fresh". Just because english doesn't have a word for it (in dutch:degelijk), doesn't mean people can't appreciate the lack of bells, whistles and changes-for-the-sake-of-change

And I'm ok
with it growing slowly, at first, so that I can get the bugs out, smooth
out the rough edges, and add needed missing features. So, I'm not
disappointed that there aren't many public groups right now, as I'm heads
down fixing and adding features.
I don't think you need thousands of groups yet. The big downside with yahoo's "more is better"-philosophy is that for some subjects there are dozens of tiny "paralel" groups, and often spamhavens.

[did you have a procedure in mind for when the mods go "AWOL" ?]



In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms. Perhaps
instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set of tags for
their groups.
If groups.io grows big, you may want to add a "sorting by geographical area", or maybe even "languages allowed" [nothing urgent about that]

One thing I don't think Groups.io does a very good job with right now is
helping group owners promote their groups. We display widgets to post to
Twitter and Facebook right after you create a group, but that's about it.
Perhaps I can make those more visible. If there are other ways we can help
group owners promote their groups, please let me know.
You can try to advertise your group(s) in a yahoogroup called Aannounce ...


groetjes, Ronaldo


--
http://www.esperanto.net http://www.moneyasdebt.net


 

walkraft,

Replying to an email address to subscribe is a really nice solution.
It doesn't require the user to visit a separate website, it doesn't
require them to manually create an account or add their email
address.
That's what the Invite mechanism does: sends the person an email. Their reply to that message adds them to the group's mailing list. Providing the person with the group's +subscribe address might be effectively the same thing. Hm, I guess I should test that.

Why does each member need to authorise the transfer of their
messages?
By international copyright convention each author has an implicit copyright to their writings. Most authorities I've read say this extends even to such small works as message postings in online services. It certainly applies to photographs and other images.

But beyond that, it is just good business (I think) to show that level of respect for your users and their content.

In the case of Yahoo Groups, Yahoo asserts that the contributing member retains ownership of the content - that's a promise that the group moderator must keep, or else be in violation of Yahoo's Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.

What the difference between moving mailing list providers and moving
web hosts, so long as the new host offers reasonable protection for
users privacy?
The difference is that the individual members have a contract with Yahoo (or, presumably, Google equivalently) regarding the disposition of any content they contribute to a group. It is not the group manager's content to relocate without permission.

In a pure mailing list (absent message archives and other stored content) this would not be a problem - the members must agree with the new list provider's terms of service, but that's usually treated as implicit in their use of the service.

-- Shal


 

There should definitely be a mechanism for users to delete all of their content in a group on Groups.io. The question is whether it should be opt in or opt out. If someone needs to opt into the transfer of their content, the vast majority of people will simply neglect to do so, even if they wouldn't have an issue with it. This would make group owners reluctant to transfer to this service. Imagine if someone acquired Yahoo groups, all content would transfer to the new company and those who didn't wish this to happen would be given the ability to opt out. It is the same thing here.

"By international copyright convention" - we all know that the inviolability of copyright is the one principle that Internet users hold most dear.... But this doesn't violate copyright. When you post material to a public mailing list, you've implicitly given the group owner permission to archive the content and for it to be distributed to other users. They are using the content in exactly the same way as before. It's not like the group owner has decided to write a book and include your content inside of it. If someone is unhappy with this, then they can delete all their content. If this still is insufficient, then they should have talked to the moderators and avoided groups where the moderators didn't share their views. It is not the job of a mailing list to enforce a particular view of morality, unless there is an official policy, belonging to the group itself or the service provider (ie. Yahoo), which explicitly bans the export of content to other services. Furthermore, anyone who posts on a public mailing list can't expect to maintain complete control over where that content goes.

If there is a special reason why the content in the group needs to be protected, then Groups.io could stop the moderators from importing the content. But a small minority of users shouldn't be able to put a roadblock in the way of a group being upgraded for the benefit of all, especially when the only loss on their part is having to opt out rather than opt in. And in the case where it isn't just a minority who are opposed to having their content migrated over, that it falls on the group moderators to recognise this and to make the decision not to migrate the content over. It is not the job of Groups.io to determine this any more than it was the responsibility of Youtube to verify the copyright status of each and every video that was uploaded.




 

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote:
Mark,

> That said, I've been thinking about ways to increase engagement. I
> think your idea of seeded groups is interesting, but I'm weary of
> having groups that look like they're sponsored by management, ...

*wary* - or perhaps you _are_ simply weary.  ;-)

Hah. I literally LOLed at this. My wife and I have 13 month old twins, so, yeah, we generally are weary these days...


Mark


 

Chris,

The question is whether it should be opt in or opt out.
I've no problem with it being opt-out, in the sense of having a place during the join and invite mechanisms where the option is pre-checked. But I believe that the option must be fairly presented before the transfer action is taken. And it must not be taken on behalf of original members who choose not to join the Groups.io version of the group.

If someone needs to opt into the transfer of their content, the vast
majority of people will simply neglect to do so, even if they wouldn't
have an issue with it.
That all depends on how easy it is to accomplish, how it is presented to the members, and any "motivators" the group managers might wish to employ. I'm sure we could brainstorm some approaches to make it be a "natural" action to take.

This would make group owners reluctant to transfer to this service.
Maybe. But compared to what alternative?

I'll grant that some group owners seem to feel proprietary about the content of their group - as if it is "theirs" to do with as they please. Others may legitimately feel that their members trust them with custodianship of the members' content.

But members can be very touchy about such issues too. In some types of groups I wouldn't want to be the manager faced with the wrath of a member who believes their content has migrated without permission.

Imagine if someone acquired Yahoo groups, all content would transfer to
the new company and those who didn't wish this to happen would be given
the ability to opt out. It is the same thing here.
No, that is a completely different scenario. In that case the acquiring company generally acquires both the rights and the responsibilities of Yahoo with regard to the user's content. They "step into Yahoo's shoes" as it is said. And the members might not be given any opt-out opportunity other than retaining the right of deletion which Yahoo granted them.

But this doesn't violate copyright.
I beg to differ. And you will get strong opinions on that point not just from me.

When you post material to a public mailing list, you've implicitly given
the group owner permission to archive the content and for it to be
distributed to other users.
No. Again, with a Yahoo Group the only agreement is between the member and Yahoo.

The group owner has absolutely no rights or privileges with respect to the members' content, other than the privilege of exclusion (the group manager may prevent posting or remove a member's content at will). This is because the group manager is not the operator of the service - he/she is just another Yahoo user.

If someone is unhappy with this, then they can delete all their content.
If they are unhappy with this they can file a take-down order against Groups.io under U.S. law. This is an administrative hassle and legal liability that Groups.io will likely take pains to avoid.

Furthermore, anyone who posts on a public mailing list can't expect to
maintain complete control over where that content goes.
While that's true, in a practical sense, the law is an ass.

Moreover, not all Yahoo Groups are "public" - many (most, the vast majority?) have their content restricted to members-only access, and many (most?) have restricted membership. Members of such groups tend to particularly sensitive to the subject of having their content turn up elsewhere.

It is not the job of Groups.io to determine this ...
It is the responsibility of Groups.io to operate within the law of the land. And for all its faults U.S. copyright law (the DMCA) is clear enough where internet service providers are concerned.

... any more than it was the responsibility of Youtube to verify the
copyright status of each and every video that was uploaded.
Um, you should be aware that Youtube does exactly that on an ongoing basis. They do sophisticated pattern matching on an unprecedented (and truly astonishing) scale.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370

-- Shal


 

I think the use of tags would be excellent, especially if they are searchable
by search engines, which would in itself give publicity to Groups.io every time
someone searched for a word used as a tag.

I don't use Twitter, Facebook or Google, but publicise my Yahoo groups via my
personal web site. I appreciate, however, that most people don't have that
facility. I haven't found anything useful for that purpose on Yahoo, and their
categorisation is useless as far as I am concerned. Most of my groups are
family history-related, to provide contact for people researching the same rare
name or the same commoner name in a restricted geographical area, so most
members tend to be distantly related to one another but only "met" via the
group.

Jim Fisher

On 30 Oct 2014 at 14:24, Mark Fletcher wrote:

In terms of categorizing groups, that opens a big can of worms. Perhaps
instead, we could have group owners themselves create a set of tags for
their groups. I'm much more a fan of bottom-up organizational structures
than top-down taxonomies. They scale better and, I think, can be more
accurate. What do you think about this?

One thing I don't think Groups.io does a very good job with right now is
helping group owners promote their groups. We display widgets to post to
Twitter and Facebook right after you create a group, but that's about it.
Perhaps I can make those more visible. If there are other ways we can help
group owners promote their groups, please let me know.
--
http://www.jimella.me.uk - my personal web site covering many subjects
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you