Groups You Share poll

Tim has recently added a Groups You Share feature to the profile page, with the following explanation: "Enhancing member participating in groups, and therefore with each other. We have never shown shared groups before, and I think we should have. Thinking about what demonstrates and promotes member-to-member connection, not past UIs, it screams out to be shown."

What do you think?

I don't care whether or not it's there - just it should not be between the two book areas.

Yeah, I think the poll should have been more specific. At the risk of complaints about additions after the start of the poll, I'm going to add more polls in an attempt to get a more precise result.

I like Groups You Share but there's way too many polls there on way too many issues that make not a whole heap of difference for me to be bothered to vote. It's fine, let's not go down the picky route again. Seriously, can anything ever be launched without a major dissection and a million daft polls ...
*mutter mutter*
(yeah, it's a pre-caffeine post)

I like shared groups. But then as I'm a member of over 100 groups there's pretty much always going to be something of interest in it for me. Makes sense to me to have close to other shared items.

I don't see the point of this. I'm not in many groups, but I know who I share them with because I see their names when they post, and recognize them.

I like Groups You Share but there's way too many polls there on way too many issues that make not a whole heap of difference for me to be bothered to vote. It's fine, let's not go down the picky route again.

So don't vote if you don't care. If other people do care enough to read and vote on three extra sentences, how does that hurt you?

>9 overthemoon: Agreed.

Where is this again? I don't see it on my profile page.

On other people's profile pages.

I care - they're fine the way they are. I can do that without clicking on a dumb poll.

Because, you know, gathering user input efficiently is such a dumb idea.

On a more productive note, while we don't have nearly enough data at this point, the results about Random books and Connections suggest that those two boxes should maybe be switched. People seem to think that Groups You Share is more important than Random Books, but about equal in importance to Connections. This implies that Connections are more important than Random Books.

"Groups you share"--- two thumbs up, from me.

Zoe's comments passim, "ditto" all around to what she said. Good ideas, good thread and, _yes_, polling members for their preferences on these, also very good.

Thanks, proximity.

Good idea to refine the poll, Zoe, and thanks for the effort. Yep, looks like most people took the first one as a to-be-or-not-to-be question.

I like this new Groups You Share feature. And thank you for the polls, _Zoe_!

You're welcome! To be fair, I have to say that it wasn't very much effort to create the polls, but I'll take the credit anyway ;)

It's interesting that the difference between Random Books and Connections has almost disappeared in the last few hours.

As a long-time LT member, I think collecting user input in this way is very much in the LibraryThing tradition. Tim may choose to ignore said input, of course... ;-) But collecting it (or asking for it) has been an LT modus operandi for years (if not since the start).

Anyway, I like the "groups you share" feature, I like it where it is, and I voted.

Cheers all

It's of very limited usefulness. If I share a group with someone, and they're actually active, chances are I know I share that group, because I've seen them post -- and if they aren't active, is it really relevant that they theoretically lurk there?

What I'd much prefer is to see groups we don't share, to see if there's another group out there that might be of interest to me. Most of the user profiles I visit are the sorts of people that I have some degree of common interest with, and so they might have discovered groups that I don't yet know about. I am entirely uninterested in groups that we do share.

I like being able to see shared groups.

I'm not sure it needs to be its own box, though. Another site I'm on uses bold to highlight shared connections (friends, groups, etc). Something like that might work for groups and authors, making it obvious that they're shared without taking up extra real estate or having duplicate data.

What's the point of a poll that most users will never see?

#22

Exactly.

#23

Yesterday, looking at random at someone's profile, I noticed for the first time check marks next to some of their collections, marking those containing books we share.

I think having the same check marks next to groups one shares, in the already existing group list, would be better than a separate box. Much more elegant, especially for those who aren't in any groups or aren't ever going to join any groups.

#23, Noisy, You can in effect see the groups you don't share by looking at the list of all the groups the person is a member of near the top of the profile page. I do this all the time to find potentially interesting groups.

#27

Yes, and the same is true for the groups you share, of course.

This is a redundant and therefore utterly silly feature. But the polls are interesting, I believe they do prove Tim is right in his efforts to dumb down the site.

Frankly, I'm less fond of Groups we share than before. My first priority is to minimize the content there—making it a "(show)" feature.

But I don't think the votes above suggest users want the Groups You Share should be moved. Am I wrong?

I would definitely support checkmarks next to the groups in the list as a substitute for a whole box.

But yeah, the polls do show that people are happy with the box exactly where it is. I'd be curious to see what the results would be like if you got rid of it for a month, and then brought it back in a slightly different spot: would people still prefer today's location, or would they prefer whatever happened to be the status quo at the time?

I'm actually quite surprised. I thought you'd win this one. Anyway, as I said, I want to tone it down. So you win either way.

I wonder if "happy with it where it is" actually translates to "likes the idea of showing shared groups"?

I think checkmarks next to groups might get cluttered and I'd prefer the idea of bolding them, but I grant that may just be because it's what I'm used to.

Edit: By the way, where are there checkmarks next to collections? I don't see that anywhere.

Yeah, I'm surprised too, especially that people are not only in favour but overwhelmingly so.

Of course, when polls first came out everyone said that they should only be one factor in making a decision.... ;)

I think checkmarks next to groups might get cluttered and I'd prefer the idea of bolding them

Yeah, I don't like either idea, frankly.

Let's take it from the top and ask, "What is interesting, if shared?" What would you find interesting and/or useful to see on a profile page.

The options are:

1. Books/works
2. Groups
3. Favorite authors
4. Favorite venues
5. Tags
6. Connections
7. Whatever else

Now:

A. What would you like to see for members you know?
B. What would you like to see for members you don't know?
C. What do you think new members should see?

I really like "groups you share" because it shows me something I hadn't previously thought about, both about myself and the other person. It pulls the shared ones out of the bigger list where people are in a lot of groups.

ETA - meant as reply to the posts above #35.

#32

Oops, heh heh... damn, I thought it was the system, maybe it's just this one dude:

http://www.librarything.com/profile/gsides78

See? See the check marks? Wouldn't it be cool to have those point out the groups we share? They don't poke your eyes out and yet are perfectly visible. Take practically no space. Last forever. Slim minimalist design and resilient construction. Say yes to the future!

>34 timspalding:

Yippee! I get to ride my hobby-horse!!

1. Books/works listed alphabetically by AUTHOR

>36 LolaWalser:

Yep - very cool.

34 Tim

I think all of those things are interesting if shared, and I am going to keep suggesting bolding as a way to distinguish shared and unshared because as I said, it works well on other sites I use.

I also don't think there should be a difference between members A, B, and C. It should all be the same.

36>

He just has checkmarks in his collection names somehow -- there are collections where we share books with no such indicator.

I also don't think there should be a difference between members A, B, and C. It should all be the same.

No, I agree. I'm just trying to tease out the differences. A lot of members take extreme general positions based on very specific uses.

The main thing for me is really just shared books/works. As Noisy said, they should be listed by author. I'm pretty sure the change to an author sort would be more useful to me than any of the other proposed "shared" features.

For members I know, I'd like to see what books they've recently read. Reviews, ratings, and acquisitions are also nice.

For members I don't know, I want to get a quick sense of what their library is about. Shared books are a good start (though, again, much more useful if sorted by author). To get a quick overview of their library as a whole, I'd like to see a tag mirror. I also find it useful to look at the complete list of groups they're in, and to read whatever they've written about themselves and their library. I may also follow links to challenge threads giving a complete list of the books they've read in a given year. If there were a quick link to a functioning reading timeline, I might look at that.

I think the reason complete group list works is because the group names are usually reasonably clear and the number of groups is manageable. I can just skim through the whole list. On the other hand, I like the Books You Share feature because if I were presented with a condensed (title-author only) list of all the books in someone's library, it would be overwhelming and not very informative.

Also for members I don't know, I'd like a quick way to see whether they use the date fields. Since you asked.

I think new members need basically the same thing as I need for members I don't know. Except maybe for the information about the date fields :P

>42 _Zoe_:

Ooooo. Functioning timeline. I'd just love that.

Actually, rather than books we share, just a list of authors we share might be even better, with the number of books by that author in brackets and linked to the catalogue list for the shared works.

What I would like on my profile is the ability that there is on the home page to determine which modules I want and don't want to show.

Personally for me, the Members with my books is worthless and I never look at it but it takes up this big hunk at the top of my profile on the right. I would much rather have my favorites over on the right out of the way or at least be able to move modules around.

I like the idea of bolding groups we have in common. It has several benefits -

- It doesn't take up the extra space, but instead uses real estate that's already there.
- It lets you see at a glance groups you share AND groups you don't share, something many people have expressed interest in.

I agree with the general sentiments that the profile page is messy and cluttered (and text-heavy) and that it could use an overall reworking.

I also agree with Zoe that what members have recently read is of very high interest to me. I might amend that to 'recent activity' if it were a bit clearer what was what - in particular, recently read, reviewed, related, and /wishlisted/.

I agree with the general sentiments that the profile page is messy and cluttered (and text-heavy)

I wasn't aware that was a general consensus, but if it is, I strongly disagree. Give me text. I like text, that's why I'm on LibraryThing and not ShinyPicturesThing. Don't take away my useful information in favor of more cutesy icons, please!

I was indicating that the sentiment was general (as in, not specific), not that there was consensus. Which is why I used that word rather than the other!

Being wary of text-heavy webpages does not mean that one must be in favor of 'cutesy icons'. It can mean any number of things - including, as it does with me, that I find it difficult to read large chunks of text smooshed together when presented on a computer screen.

> 30
But yeah, the polls do show that people are happy with the box exactly where it is.

No, they don't. They show that people who spend time in the forums and bother to open this thread are happy with the box where it is. That has nothing to do with whether the majority are either a) happy or b) don't give a rat's ass.

37/42: Yes please. Alphabetization by Author, not title.

That has nothing to do with whether the majority are either a) happy or b) don't give a rat's ass.

Fortunately, this distinction is irrelevant. Regardless of whether people are actively happy or just don't care, there's no call to move the box.

Let's see how it looks smaller. I am not as immovable on it as you all think.

I don't think you're immovable on it. I just think user opinion is in favour. We've all heard before that polls are only one tool in deciding what you'll actually do :)

If you ask me, the poll revealed:

1. People don't like a new idea shot down immediately.
2. The feature is totally new, and therefore interesting. This might fade.
3. Enthusiasm for other people's connections is not high.
4. People on Talk are more social than the average LT user, so exposing groups more was more welcomed than it might otherwise have been.
5. Some people don't like it. I think they would mind less if it were less conspicuous/large.

I think you're reading too much into it.

People don't like a new idea shot down immediately.

Please implement review comments and we'll see how that goes.

Enthusiasm for other people's connections is not high.

Where does this come from? The attitudes toward connections and toward random books (as measured here) are very similar. You just happened to have a preconceived idea that random books are good.

People on Talk are more social than the average LT user, so exposing groups more was more welcomed than it might otherwise have been.

I'm not convinced about this either. I use Talk, and the shared groups function isn't useful to me--precisely because I already know who participates in my groups.

I think your second point is the most valid: The feature is totally new, and therefore interesting. This might fade.

I'm not convinced about this either. I use Talk, and the shared groups function isn't useful to me--precisely because I already know who participates in my groups.

Rrrright. So, I'm arguing that people who visit pet shops are more likely to appreciate zoos. This isn't always true, but there's some transference. I think it's a reasonable inference to make that people who don't use groups at all are less interested in group statistics on profile pages. By definition, someone on talk uses groups. So, it's reasonable to conclude there's some selection bias.

Please implement review comments and we'll see how that goes.

To be honest, I think that you probably drew some fire too. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think your input is valuable. But your criticism is not always looked on favorably by others. I suspect that, if I had started the poll, it would have tipped a few percent from yours, although a different anti-powers-that-be-group might have compensated for that.

Where does this come from? The attitudes toward connections and toward random books (as measured here) are very similar. You just happened to have a preconceived idea that random books are good.

I only said that enthusiasm for other people's connections is not high. I didn't say anything about random books. If people were very enthusiastic about other people's connections, I think they would have been correspondingly less interested in having another section on top of it. Right?

By definition, someone on talk uses groups.

The thing is, I don't think the converse is true. Someone can join a group to indicate their interest in the subject without actually paying much or any attention to Talk. It's easy for the casual user to browse the groups one day and sign up for a few, and I think these people would benefit more from the shared groups feature than the people who are on Talk every day.

To be honest, I think that you probably drew some fire too.

Oh, absolutely.

I think it's also relevant that I only presented your arguments in favour of the feature, to avoid all the criticism about how biased my questions are (though I don't think it was worth it; I'd rather give both sides next time and deal with the complaints). It's interesting that presenting only one side of the argument doesn't lead to complaints about bias, as long as that one side represents the official view.

I only said that enthusiasm for other people's connections is not high. I didn't say anything about random books.

That's my point: you're cherry-picking the revelations that fit best with the ideas you already have. You pointed out the lack of enthusiasm for connections while ignoring the lack of enthusiasm for random books, even though the situation is the same in both cases. If anything, there's slightly more support for connections than for random books.

I think it's also relevant that I only presented your arguments in favour of the feature

I'm certainly not accusing you of anything. It was useful to do. It would say that even if results had been otherwise.

If anything, there's slightly more support for connections than for random books.

That's fair, although I think the experienced-user bias might come into play. Anyway, my point was to contrast the groups box with a competitor. Both competitors are not very strong. I should have said that more explicitly.

It's interesting that presenting only one side of the argument doesn't lead to complaints about bias, as long as that one side represents the official view.

I think I get a pass on liking features. I put a lot of effort into them! :)

#40

And I just happened to look at a few collections where we DO share books! But they sure look neat, his check marks.

#45

I like the idea of bolding groups we have in common. It has several benefits -

- It doesn't take up the extra space, but instead uses real estate that's already there.
- It lets you see at a glance groups you share AND groups you don't share, something many people have expressed interest in.

I like this a lot. No mental computation necessary, no switching gaze from left to right comparing shares/not shares, all there in one spot.

#55

Tim, out of idle curiosity, if we don't belong to any groups, could the Groups you share box be deactivated, i.e. invisible (until one joins at least one group)? By default, I mean, no user opting in or out. Assuming you decide to keep it where it is.

I'm certainly not accusing you of anything.

Oh, I didn't take it as an accusation. I was just pointing out another possible factor influencing the result.

It was useful to do.

I'm still looking forward to the day when you declare polls officially released and free to be used as we see fit. There are all sorts of interesting questions to ask....

Anyway, my point was to contrast the groups box with a competitor. Both competitors are not very strong.

Ah, that makes sense. I think.

I think I get a pass on liking features. I put a lot of effort into them! :)

And I put a lot of effort into complaining about them :D

You're going to leave all groups in order to get rid of the box?

I'm still looking forward to the day when you declare polls officially released and free to be used as we see fit. There are all sorts of interesting questions to ask....

Yes. I need to find time to add the features that will complete it.

I think I get a pass on liking features. I put a lot of effort into them! :)

Very true. It's hard to—as the fella says—make the weaker argument the stronger.

You're going to leave all groups in order to get rid of the box?

Oh, I don't think so, although... well, I might, depending on how irksome I find the box--but then again, to me joining and watching a group doesn't present a big difference. And I'm not particularly clubbable anyway, I blush to think how many groups, threads, and wonderful posters I've neglected. Keep neglecting!

Otoh, I really like, as you well know, the MWYB, Connections and all that. What rsterling mentioned somewhere, about how neat it is to grasp random books and MWYB in one glance. So, I'm not sure. If it turns out the box regularly gets on my nerves, then yeah, I'd welcome this solution to removing it. Again, with the caveat that for ME it wouldn't be a huge sacrifice.

And of course, apparently I'm not your average customer, so it's unlikely many, if any, would follow suit. But maybe it makes sense to have that as a default. Going from "quiet" to "noisier", as it were.

Well, give me a chance to tone it down first.

Incidentally, Tim, what do you think of the idea to represent Groups you share (and, complementary, Groups you don't share) by bolding or some such in the existing Groups list? The "Invite to groups" link could fit nicely in the topmost Contacts box. Where it used to be, sort of.

I don't like the bolding or check-ing ideas. I think they're cramming too much information in. (And boy does this page cram it.)

I didn't vote in any of the polls, because none of them address my opinion. I just hate where it is. I don't care hwere it goes, I just don't want it between the books.

How about one Box. You share: 3 LT authors, 5 favourite authors, 20 authors, 124 books (see in catalogue / list (by author), 7 groups.

It wouod be small. But expandable. And possible to expand all items. I do find all of these interesting, and don't visit profiles of even people I know often enough to mind the repitition of information.

I would love a recently read feature. And a clearly seperate recently added to wishlist.

All 7 items listed in #34 are worth seeing, but not all of them as shared items. Tag especially not.

The one tricky thing I see about putting shared group information in the pre-existing group list on the left (bold, checkmarks, etc) is that you can't always see all the groups someone belongs to. If they belong to more than a certain number, you have to click "Show all" first. So you're not getting all the info in one spot regardless.

So if people are looking for just the groups that they share, then that is an argument for a separate box. A one-glance process rather than a click.

Msg 67: Gets my vote.

I'm still looking forward to the day when you declare polls officially released and free to be used as we see fit. There are all sorts of interesting questions to ask....

Oh heavens, you really are aiming to be my nemesis this year Zoe ;-))))

If it hadn't been for the blog post, I don't think I would have even noticed the addition of the "groups you share" box. This seems like a lot of fuss over something minor.

Oh heavens, you really are aiming to be my nemesis this year Zoe ;-))))

Yup, being your nemesis was #1 on my list of New Year's resolutions ;)

> 30 Not necessarily. I voted yes, I like the list and don't care where it's presented as long as it's available somehow.

One draw back to the current presentation is I don't have an easy way to easily pick out what we don't share. In the case of some connections, the not shared groups list is more interesting than the shared groups list.

I should really edit that post to replace "happy" with "content".

They "gave it the thumbs up."

Yup, being your nemesis was #1 on my list of New Year's resolutions ;)

D'ya think Tim would make you a special nemesis badge ... that would be cool!

>77 _Zoe_: Oh, I hope so! That would be fun.

Whatever happened to that long-ago idea of barnstar things?

I bet he'd never let us have 'Nemesis' barnstars though ...

I'd do it. I think medals has been liked by many, but despised by a few.

I agree with Message 44 and Message 46-No more pictures-text is good and members with shared books-ehhh?-there is other ways to find simpatico members

Ugh! Can we have the option to not display our groups? Or, failing that, if we must have this thing, could you at least fix the bug that shows watched and ignored groups as joined groups?

Members With Your Books is very good. Groups You Share, not so much. I agree with those who pointed out that anyone active in groups pretty much knows most of the members posting there.

I also like #67's idea. One clean box with the option to expand each item. It would help clean up the rather text/info-heavy profile page, no?