Bigger tents: Tim's "Interest Group" proposal

The "failed groups" thread has me thinking, and I've come up with a novel idea.

I'd like to request that messages 1-25 all come from different users, reacting to the idea, rather than immediately getting into a debate with a small number of users.

What would people think of creating some "big-tent" groups, like "History" or "Debate" which would aggregate together posts in much smaller groups? The actual change could be slight, except in how the groups are viewed--you could view everything within a given "big tent" (interest group? roundtable?) together.

Here's my rationale. As has been said elsewhere, groups tend not to work if the membership is too small. At the same time, discovering small groups is very hard. Take these groups:

Byzantinistik : http://www.librarything.com/groups/byzantinistik
Alexander the Great : http://www.librarything.com/groups/alexanderthegreat
Homer, The Trojan War and Pre-Clasical Greece : http://www.librarything.com/groups/homerthetrojanwaran

All are small and largely dormant. They are, I admit, not for everyone. But I suspect there are a lot more people who'd participate in them if they knew about them. More, I suspect that people interested in one of them would probably be interested in all of them, at least enough to not mind threads from them appearing somewhere together.

My evidence? I didn't even know about the Trojan War group, and I'm on the site 60 hours a week and have ancient history as my primary effing interest! I simply don't want to go chasing this stuff down. If it's about ancient history--indeed almost any history--I want to know it and have it automatically added to the stuff I follow. And if occasionally someone is posting about modern Scandinavian history, well, fine, I'll ignore that group or whatever.

Note that tags have helped discovery somewhat, but you can't see all the threads by a tag, and tags lack the solidity an "interest group" would have.

Here's my proposal:

1. LibraryThing creates X interest groups (or pick a term). We're open to ideas, but we need to keep the number down, so it won't be a democratic process.
2. Groups can place themselves in 1-2 interest groups.
3. Interest groups show up on group pages, like History > Alexander the Great.
4. You can belong to a whole interest group. They show up first in your lists of groups.
5. Each interest group also has a new "slop" group—General History, for example.
6. You can unfollow any group within an interest group you follow.
7. You can see topics for any of the interest groups, and interest groups get a group-level page listing the groups in them, how active they are and etc.
8. The whole structure would be entirely optional—groups won't have to belong to an interest group, and members won't need to belong to any of them.

So, I proposed this on the "failed groups" thread and was met with some negativity. Frankly, I'm too convinced this is a good idea to entertain another battle. I apologize for that feeling, but it's my feeling. So, if you're opposed to this, I urge you to figure out how to live with it, eviscerate it or redirect it somehow.

I like it.

I think that this is a great idea; particularly if subscribing to an upper level gives a member a single view of the contents of all subgroups.

Great idea, Tim. We've needed something like this for a long while now.

There might be some devils in the details issues (isn't there always?) but it sounds workable as proposed in the OP.

How would it work to have "groups place themselves" in interest groups? Would the creator have to do it, or could any member do it, similar to adding tags? I like the idea in theory, but would be concerned that the dormant groups would still get left out of this grouping if the creator (and members) were no longer participating and, as a result, didn't add their group to the larger interest group.

Agreed, I think it's a great idea.

ETA Am I right in understanding that you'd still be able to join a group without joining the 'tent' the group is in? I'm thinking that for some of the categories (depending on how they're worked out), the number of posts might be difficult to work with if you see all of them. For example, if one of the groups is "Reading Challenges" I would think that a fair portion of people would only be interested in reading the threads from one group, not all of them?

I like the idea a lot.
I can't tell if this is already how you envision it from the way you describe it in the OP, but when viewing "Interest Groups," would we see a few links (to the most recently active, most members, what have you) in each? That would give an idea of what sorts of groups exist within the larger group, and also provide some instant gratification for members who either have slow loading times or just hate those "extra" clicks. :)

If you implement it, I'll live with it. It goes against everything I've been saying about building groups as engaged user communities, though. I like the idea of people actually choosing to join or watch the groups they're interested in. I think populating relatively small interest groups with large numbers of members who are only vaguely interested in the specific topic is not a recipe for strong groups of engaged and connected members.

I think the real issue is how to help people find groups of interest. We already have group tags in place as a way of organizing groups; now they just have to do more. Here are some ideas:

1) Tag pages have a section for related group tags
2) Tag pages have a section for related groups
3) Work pages have a section for related groups
4) Group pages have a section for related groups
5) Group zeitgeists come back, with the section showing which other groups members belong to
6) Tagwatch for groups, where you can see which groups were recently tagged "history" etc.
7) Ability to "favourite" groups
7a) ability to see favourite groups of a given user
7b) ability to see favourite groups on a site-wide level (edit: and weighted by how many participants consider it a favourite, so that a group with only 50 members but where half of them considered it a favourite would have a chance of showing up in the list)
8) Homepage module highlighting different groups (newly-created and with a lot of activity; suddenly removed from dormancy; whatever)
9) List view for group tags

I really wanted to come up with one more for an even ten, but that's all I can think of for now. Hopefully the first 25 posts will come quickly.

Oh, one more: 10) group recommendations for each user.

It's a very interesting concept. So, for instance, all the "sewing/knitting/etc" groups could be under one "tent" group? And the Twilight groups could go under another "tent"?

As long as it's optional and groups don't *have* to be able to fit into a tent, that sounds cool.

But how many "tents" will there be and how much good will it really do if there can only be a small number of tents? Will the tents focus more on stuff like genres, like "history", "politics", whatever? Or will there be room for tents like Twilight and such... would there be a tent for all the book-challenge groups?

I like the idea, but how much it will really "help" anything depends on the details, which we don't have much of yet.

Has someone already asked - will groups be able to fit under multiple "tents"? Will "tents" be able to nest/stack?

I think that this is a fine concept. Two 'tents' (that name has to go though!) that immediately spring to mind are Food and Fine press.

I can see how it would help the "small and largely dormant" groups in your example, but we need to figure how to get the "actually dormant" groups into the 'tents' if they are worth re-activating.

will groups be able to fit under multiple

I'm thinking a group can belong to 0-2 tents. I don't think they'll stack, but they could.

Perhaps a Venn diagram display of how the groups overlap might be useful.
Thus there is some overlap with the SF, Fantasy,South American surrealist fans. Logically though, the Twilight "mob" is related, but I prefer to ignore them (and I am sure the feeling is reciprocated)

I think Groups need this kind of structure. There are literally thousands of groups out there, and they are all free-floating. Umbrella groups would narrow things down to manageable clusters. And it would be easier to find out when a relevant new group has been created. Currently, a lot of new groups probably die just because no one ever knows they're there.

I think controversy over gets who gets put in what tent will be inevitable. Imagine a 'religion' tent, and then discussion of say, Scientology? Or a Christianity tent, and Mormonism...

Or even a 'Twilight' tent. Would "Twilight for Adults" be revived if lumped in a Twilight tent with "twilight lovers team edward OR team jacob??:)" ? Does "TWILIGHT TALK" or "Twilight Group---- Twilight haters not allowed" want to be lumped with "Twlight Haters"?

People think all Twilight fans are the same and wish to shove them in the same tent. But they aren't. Now that search is a lot better I think that duplicate groups will be created largely because they aren't seen as the same as the other groups out there already. I realize tents isn't the same as combining but... but just realize that while "History" may sound relatively uncontroversial, not every category will be so easy... and it sort of seems to ghettoize groups into say, two main topics, while I'd imagine some of the big groups with a variety of interests might not be happy with that... I recognize they don't have to join the tents now that they are big. But hypothetically, would the Green Dragon have grown so big if only in a Sci-Fi/Fantasy tent initially? (Maybe yes, but maybe not...)

Interesting idea; I think it would certainly improve people's chances of finding a group they were interested in. I think your layout offers quite a bit of flexibility.

Super-groups, perhaps?

So what über-groups would be suggested? So far, History, Debate, Challenges, Twilight, Science Fiction and Crafts (sewing/knitting/etc.) have been mentioned; I think that a key element of success for this will be how many of these meta-groups are created. If they are TOO general, it won't work as well; perhaps Ancient History would be better than History. Unless you plan to nest them? Ancient History as a subset of all groups on History, with Early Modern History as another at the same level?

Just throwing out some thoughts :-)

Could this be done by adding a "watch all" button to every group tag page? Then there wouldn't need to be difficult decisions about what category a group belongs to, and the data is already there right now. (Of course, there would also need to be an "unwatch all" button.)

I know, it's not my turn to post yet. But I'm not debating, just adding a new idea.

Actually, I'd like it even more if we could just view Talk filtered by group tag. I think this is almost what Tim is suggesting, but without the umbrella groups officially existing, and with the option to see all the relevant threads in Talk view rather than as a group page.

I think that the minimum number of tents for a group to be in should be 1, and the maximum should be up around 5. A group could easily be in the religion, history, and philosophy tents; if there were an ontology tent it could be there too as could some science groups.

That said, I want not to have to fuss with it until I feel like it. Implement it, and let me keep doing what I'm doing but pick up slowly on the groups that have been associated with my current groups.

I'm a Unitarian-Universalist, but I see no problem with a tent including us, the pro and cons, the heathens, the Christians, the Buddhists...

Robert

>21 timspalding:

But that's fiddly. I'm interested in history, language, site-related conversations, debate, religion and politics. I'm really supposed to go flipping through all these tags, either finding groups to actually follow or, worse, find threads I care about? Look, if there's a new group about language starting up, I want to know without having to search for it, and I probably want to follow it.

Oh, and you've already posted! :) Damn, so have I.

Look, if there's a new group about language starting up, I want to know without having to search for it, and I probably want to follow it.

That's what Grouptagwatch is for ;)

Anyway, I think the main thing I object to here is basing the groupings on one or two classifications chosen presumably by the group owner, rather than on the group tags that already exist and that you haven't done much with. I wouldn't mind if you could "follow" a group tag in addition to individual groups. ETA: And I think that would offer a lot more flexibility. We could choose to follow all History or just Ancient History, etc.

Seeing as others have posted twice...

16: Would you still object if each group (or group creator/admin/den mother - not wishing to open that can of worms here) decided on what tent/supergroup(s) to which the group should belong?

22 to 3. I'd say we've got a stalemate here.

No fair, people are posting more than once and we haven't reached 25 yet (unless two other people have posted while I've been typing this).

I'm currently undecided. It sounds good, but it's very similar but less flexible than the system you already have under the Talk tab. This new system lets you watch a bunch of similar groups at once. The Talk tab lets you join a bunch of groups and watch them at once. The only problem is that you don't automatically join new groups with overlapping subjects.

Having two ways of doing such very similar things is going to be very confusing I think. Instead maybe you could think of a mechanism to automatically get notification of new groups in subject areas of your interest.

23 to 4. I changed my undecided to a no.

>24 timspalding: I can't say I'm a fan of the "yes or no" approach to feature development, where you come up with a feature and we either approve or disapprove with no chance for discussion or modification, but meh.

I think this sounds good but the next step should be looking at some of Zoe's suggestions. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. If you want to make talk easy to use, browse and explore you should implement several new things. Some people are very comfortable with exploring from general categories, others are more comfortable with specific tags. I would probably belong to the latter category but I voted yes anyway.

Part of the point would be that it wouldn't just be a way to find things, but a overarching group. You could join it. The fact that you joined it would be listed on your profile. It would have a list of members. It would have a page showing groups, tags, etc.

>29 timspalding: Yeah, I don't think massive default-type groups do anything for community atmosphere. See also my post about what's wrong with Talk and Groups.

31 yes, 6 no, 3 undecided... the latter of which includes me. I would need to see something like this in action before I could say yea or nay... The apparent loss of critical cells in my brain doesn't allow me to envision the concept well enough to say if it would be useful to me or not. That said, if it's possible to ignore these interest groups as I have done with some of the talk groups where the majority of members speak and write languages other than English, then I'd be able to cope fine if I don't want to be part of an interest group, so I won't necessarily oppose, but I might not join the approval contingent either.

I am in favour. New members often find it hard to locate groups of interest. This is partly because group names are not always a clear identification of content; partly becasue there are so many groups; partly because numerous people have started very similar groups. Tagging is a help, but not enough (there were so many semi-dormant groups before tagging was added that that alone cannot cut through the confusion).

I don't personally care how it is done: supertags, collections, whathaveyou. But as an adjunct, I think it is worth looking at how and why new groups are created - some changes there might usefully work in tandem with Tim's big idea.

I originally voted yes, but Zoe and jjwilson convinced me, I think. I'm not that keen on the idea of categorization established by TPTB (See, LoC subject headings vs. user tags), and I don't really see what value added you get from people seeing you've joined a supergroup.

Also, I imagine it would be fairly rare that someone would want to see (much less read) all of the posts in all of the groups in one supergroup. It is certainly useful to see which groups you might be interested in based on a particular topic, and among those which are currently active. But even though I am interested in history and progressive politics and design, having all threads in groups on those topics automatically appear on my talk page would make the talk interface pretty much useless to me. One of the reasons I don't post more often is the shear amount of wading through things I have to do as it is.

I'd be very interested in a Grouptagwatch feature, though.

Ah, see, I thought you meant that *groups* would be part of the Interest Group, not *members*. I suppose some members might be interested in every group in a larger "tent," but I imagined it as more of a way of collecting groups for ease of discovery. I guess members being able to join the larger group doesn't hurt anything, but I don't see it being utilized by many for long - I'd likely go nuts, especially if admins could assign their group to Interest Groups without moderation: I could see that being easily abused.

I think it's a great idea. It would definitely make it easier to find group that you're interested in. I also think that it would help to increase/diversify the number of groups that users post in thereby increasing the overall health of the talk forums (an increase in the number of active forums would also make participation less scary for new users).

And, from what I understand, you can easily opt out of any supergroup or subgroup if you don't like the feature.

So really, what exactly would the drawbacks be?

Drawbacks - people with large numbers of groups (me for instance) will find the 'Your Groups' talk flooded by messages from groups I'm only tangently interested in - I suppose it depends on just how big the Tents end up being.

If you've a group about an SF author, does it go into the "Author Groups" tent, and annoy all the Dickins fans, or in the "SF" tent and distract sf discussion with specific authorial questions? Or both, which probably annoys the most people!

Do we have a 'fiction' tent, a 'Speculative fiction' tent, or descrete, SF; F; Fic; Crime; Mystery; Adventure; Historical fic; and alternative Fic tents?

How subidivided would Fantasy get? does Urban F deserve it's own tent?
How about geograpghy - worldwide tent, or continent, or country?

We had all these problems when the beta classification scheme was in place, they weren't well answered then, and I can't see them being resolved now either.

I started by voting yes, but after reading through I have switched to undecided. My main worry is filtering - suppose I am interested in Fantasy and am looking at the Fantasy tent - probably all I will see are a few big dominant groups - Hogwarts Express, Twilight*X, which I know of, but don't wish to follow. I will quickly stop looking, and never see the interesting new Ethshar group that someone has just created for a group read of The Final Calling.

If there was a way to separate out the big groups within the tent, it might improve this, but getting it right is non-trivial

ETA: #1 does mention

6. You can unfollow any group within an interest group you follow. which might be enough for my main worry, provided that it was easy enough to do

Pretty much what #36 and #37 say.

Initially positive (I think some have been far too keen to create very specialised groups when a more general one would have done as a start until there was sufficient traffic) - but there are more than a few devils in the detail. Those devils may hamper usability to a large degree for some users.

Ditto 37. That's very worrying. There would have to be a way to block/hide certain groups. Users should be able to customize Talk in such a way that it will show conversations from all fantasy groups (if that's the interest group the user has joined), with the exception of group A, group Q, group X.

Agree there is devil in the detail. But I still think it's essentially a good idea.

#37-39

I edited my #37 after rereading #1 - Tim did include

6. You can unfollow any group within an interest group you follow.

which might be enough if it was easy enough to do and undo...

Generally a good idea.

I'd definitely appreciate some way of keeping similarly-themed groups connected to one another - herding them loosely together rather than allowing them to range freely across the wide open savannahs of LT. (And now I have them mentally designated 'stables'. Help.) I'd like to know what I'm missing. And I think a single big-tent meta-group I could look at to see a list of themed groups would be a good way of doing that.

On the other hand, a beefed-up system of group tagging could also do that. So I'm behind the principle, not opposed to the suggested method, and open to other possible methods.

Although, if the groups make it into Talk, I'd like to see the tents kept separate from the ordinary-level groups for ease of navigation (a Your Tents option as well as Your Groups?)

I'd primarily like a way to see discussions on groups I don't normally follow. I find the whole '75' stuff a bit intimidating because there is no way I can read that many books. But I like Tioli so want to follow it.

And any time a subject comes up that I'm interested I'd like to know about it.

However that can be done, would make me happy. Tags, Groups Watch, Groupings, whatever.

I'm voting yes for this, as I think overall this is a positive step for the forums. I see this helping over the long haul.

Major concerns:

1) How does one user choosing to not follow a group within the "tent" affect other users? If a set percent of users choose to not follow, does that group then get kicked from the "Tent"?

2) I think from a basic standpoint, you'd almost HAVE to nest the tents. As mentioned in other posts, Twilight alone would require at least two sub tents - Lovers and Haters. Fantasy might exist as an overarching tent, but then need sub tents for each style, and then the sub tents might require an additional nest for series among that style. (Fantasy -> Urban Fantasy -> Twilight/Harry Dresden as my examples. YMMV)

3) Does the "slop" group within the "tent" take over for the present "Book Talk" forum, thus allowing the threads to be more focused and less "I love this book!" type that appear there?

I'm still willing to vote yes to this, but these issues would need to be examined as it moves forward.

Separate proposal for grouptagwatch.

So really, what exactly would the drawbacks be?

1) Difficulty in deciding which category a group would belong to. This could be avoided by using group tags instead.
2) Difficulty in deciding what the base categories are to begin with. This could be avoided by using group tags instead.
3) Inflexibility of the system. Is it better to go with a broad History group or a smaller Ancient History group? Using tags would keep both options open.

Then, for the idea of calling the superstructure a "group" that you join, rather than saying it's a quick way to follow multiple real groups:
4) This weakens the group structure. These few big super-groups are less likely to develop a sense of community or a character of their own. I prefer to think of groups as real communities than as convenient aggregators of data. What does it mean to say "I belong to the Fantasy group, except for the Green Dragon and the Hogwarts Express"? Each group member will belong to a completely different group, once unfollowing certain groups is implemented, and I just don't see this helping with the sense of community.

How about an "I don't know where to post this" group with a feature allowing group members to move threads to an appropriate group?

I generally have my Home page Talk set to Your Groups, only rarely switch to All Topics or Hot Topics, so I am oblivious to groups that have formed or become active since the last time I searched, and I don't especially want to go searching for groups again and again. The "big tent" proposal seems a way to express an interest in, for example, Science, and have relevant groups automatically show up in Talk. Now, what I might want in addition is a way to opt out of some of these groups, e.g. I want in general to be informed when Challenge groups are created, but I don't necessarily want to pay attention all of them. Ideally, I want to be able to filter Talk so that I can, at various times, keep a general eye on LT discussions (bugs, RSI, etc), occasionally switch over to one or another subject of interest, keep track of specific people (starred threads) in challenge groups -- separately, not all mixed together as they are now.

I think this is overall a good idea but implementing it could get complicated.

What if active groups were able to adopt defunct groups? The old groups posts could be migrated into the adopting group or groups with the old group name added to the thread title.

That would avoid any upset over what tent active groups fit into and it would avoid dormant groups just moving into dormant tents.

Ideally, I want to be able to filter Talk so that I can, at various times, keep a general eye on LT discussions (bugs, RSI, etc), occasionally switch over to one or another subject of interest, keep track of specific people (starred threads) in challenge groups -- separately, not all mixed together as they are now.

I really want this as well, and I think it's especially important for people who don't use the site everyday.

This seems like a good idea to me but only because Tim said we can unfollow groups within a tent.

I like it for the very reasons Tim articulated in his original post: even if I'm interested in a subject, it is hard to find groups that might be of interest if I don't know they exist. I understand _Zoe_'s point about tags, but not everyone is a tag person (I'm not, for example). One way I currently find new groups is by going to the profile pages of people who make interesting comments about books and seeing what groups they're in. This is very hit or miss. A "tent" (awful word) which allowed us to see groups of potential interest AND unfollow ones that aren't of interest would be very useful, not just for me, but also for new members and for people who aren't as techno-savvy or don't have the time to use the tag system. I think it's good for LT to offer members multiple ways of finding groups and features of interest to them because everybody doesn't think or use technology in the same way.

That said, and as others have said, the devil is in the details, especially with respect to who assigns groups to "tents" and how finely the "tents" are defined. But, in general, I think this is something that can really help a large number of current and future members of LT.

I like the general idea of this. I'm a little confused about the actual way it would work, but I'm willing to see.

I do think that considering a way to make group tags, which are already in place, do the work of this for us is probably a good idea.

not everyone is a tag person (I'm not, for example).... new members and for people who aren't as techno-savvy or don't have the time to use the tag system.

This seems like it's mostly a presentation issue. What is it about the current tag system that makes it seem inaccessible or techy? How could it be improved?

> 51

I do think that considering a way to make group tags, which are already in place, do the work of this for us is probably a good idea.

I do not, unless it were in addition to other ways.

The difficulty with reliance on tags is that it is hit-or-miss. I am a member of a couple of groups that could fall under a "Children's books" tent, among others (ABC books and Pop-ups). Yet neither group is tagged "children's books".

And, as rebeccanyc says, not everyone is a tag person. I use them only in my catalog, as a finding aid. I have never used them to find a book outside my catalog, much less a group.

>53 lilithcat: How could tagging, that anyone can participate in, possibly be more hit-or-miss than a system where only a limited number of people get to decide on the category? Who's going to classify groups into these tent groups?

I still think Tim should focus on making the most out of existing features, including presenting them in a way that encourages people to use them. I wasn't a "tags" person before using LT; I had never even heard of the concept. But LT showed me that it could be useful.

_Zoe_,

For me it's not a "presentation issue". I don't find the current system "inaccessible or techy". It's simply that my mind doesn't work that way. I don't use tags as a search mechanism outside my catalog.

I do not understand why you seem to feel the need to force everyone into a "tag" box. You like to use them, and that's fine. Others don't, and that's fine, too.

> 54

How could tagging, that anyone can participate in, possibly be more hit-or-miss than a system where only a limited number of people get to decide on the category?

Did you even read my post? I gave a concrete example. Someone looking at all the groups, with a view toward finding relationships, would look at those two and likely say, "Hmm, those would both fit under children's books". I did tag groups I created, but I did so to describe that particular group, not with any intent to connect it in any way with any other group.

Ditto 37. That's very worrying. There would have to be a way to block/hide certain groups. Users should be able to customize Talk in such a way that it will show conversations from all fantasy groups (if that's the interest group the user has joined), with the exception of group A, group Q, group X.

See point 6 in my initial post:

"6. You can unfollow any group within an interest group you follow."

Please, don't just build on each others' wrong information. The point is that you'll be able to follow and unfollow any groups you like within an "interest group" ("super group," whatever).

I generally have my Home page Talk set to Your Groups, only rarely switch to All Topics or Hot Topics, so I am oblivious to groups that have formed or become active since the last time I searched, and I don't especially want to go searching for groups again and again. The "big tent" proposal seems a way to express an interest in, for example, Science, and have relevant groups automatically show up in Talk.

Well put and exactly my idea.

52, _Zoe_, I guess I just don't find tags helpful for me in general. I tag my own books in a way that is meaningful for me to help me find or think about them, but I find other people's tags don't necessarily correspond to the way I would use a tag and thus I still have to pick my way through things that may not interest me.

After I wrote the above, I decided I shouldn't just speak theoretically so I went to the group pages for five groups I belong to or watch (content-oriented groups, not challenge or reading log groups) and clicked through all the tags. After seeing about 15 or so lists by tag, I only found one list that potentially had groups of interest. This does seem like a lot of work.

Perhaps if lots more people tagged groups, so that certain tags would "float to the top" with substantially more people tagging a group that way, eventually it would be a meaningful way to find groups. But right now it's all over the place.

But my main point, and I repeat it, is that I think it's good for LT to have multiple ways to access groups and other features of interest both for new and future members.

58> _Zoe_, I guess I just don't find tags helpful for me in general. I tag my own books in a way that is meaningful for me to help me find or think about them, but I find other people's tags don't necessarily correspond to the way I would use a tag and thus I still have to pick my way through things that may not interest me

I don't understand this. Tags and tents are the same thing. Someone is going to label tents with names that describe what the groups within them are about. That's a tag. The only difference is that Tim hasn't told us how he's going to assign the names (tags) to the tents.

This whole idea is pretty weird coming from Tim the tag-guy. Instead he seems to be proposing a controlled vocabulary to assign to groups, in essence subject headings.

(Although this all depends on how the subject names are chosen. If Tim chooses them then they're like subject headings, but if he lets people choose their own tent names then theyr'e like tags).

>56 lilithcat: Seriously, do we need to get into the rhetoric of "Did you even read this"? Yes, I read your post. It's not clear to me why this new sort of group classification structure would be any more successful than tagging. When tagging was released, people did go around labelling groups. Obviously, some things were missed. But what would make this new system any different?

>57 timspalding: I'm disappointed that you only seem interested in finding support for your specific proposal, not in considering other approaches that might accomplish the same goal.

The "big tent" approach doesn't seem intrinsically better to me than a tag-based auto-follow. That would equally be "a way to express an interest in, for example, Science, and have relevant groups automatically show up in Talk". The tag-based approach has the advantage of not requiring us to start from scratch with a new and, to use your words, "undemocratic" classification system.

Perhaps if lots more people tagged groups, so that certain tags would "float to the top" with substantially more people tagging a group that way, eventually it would be a meaningful way to find groups. But right now it's all over the place.

I absolutely agree that the current tagging system isn't fully realized. Like most features, I suspect that people would tag more if it did more.

I also agree that there should be more entry points to LT social features.

> 59

Haha, that's what I think too! Same effect, different terminology. I don't think we need to make anything look like a typical 'tag' page - a more formalized structure might be helpful. But surely we can use all the tags already added to identify groups that are about ancient history or children's books (if the group doesn't have the tag, add it! or give me a link and I will add it.)

> 59: Although : did you ever try camping in a tag? ;-)

I agree with 59 and 62.

@ 38, 39, and anyone else

Tim clearly stated in his initial post that you could opt out of any supergroup or group that you didn't want to be a part of.

@ 45 (plus a request for clarification from Tim)

It seems that you're thinking about it in the wrong way. The supergroups aren't places for having discussions, they're for organizing the regular groups (is this right Tim?).

I understand where you're coming from on the supergroup versus grouptag issue. It's just that supergroups are easier and cleaner and therefore more conducive towards encouraging participation by users who currently are not active in the forums.

Also, it seems pretty obvious that "I belong to the Fantasy group, except for the Green Dragon and the Hogwarts Express" means that you're interested in fantasy in general but not the Green Dragon or Hogwarts Express (for whatever reason). How is this any different than the current situation where someone is involved in various fantasy group but not the Green Dragon or Hogwarts Express?

And why does it matter if each group member has their own unique set of groups that they're a part of? Are you saying that a sense of community can only be fostered through encouraging homogeneity?

>65 JGKC: I'm saying that the "group" designation is meaningless if it's really just an aggregate of other groups. If it's just a way of organizing the regular groups, why pretend that it is itself a group?

I still think it's a presentation issue. As jjwilson and Aerrin have also said, there's nothing intrinsically different about "super-groups" as opposed to tags. Tim could take the existing data and present it in an easier and cleaner way.

65> The supergroups aren't places for having discussions, they're for organizing the regular groups

This is what Tim said in #1,

5. Each interest group also has a new "slop" group—General History, for example.

That sounds pretty close to the supergroups having a place for discussion.

What about implementing grouptagwatch, calling the tags "group subject headings" and calling the grouptagwatch function "following a tent". Then everyone should be happy and we can all tag along with BarkingMatt when he is going camping.

>68 auntSteelbreaker: Hehe, I like it.

I think it seems cleaner because nothing has been implemented yet. As soon as you get into the arguments about what the supergroups should be it'll get nearly as messy as tags pretty quickly.

The problem that this proposal seems to be trying to address is real. It is hard to avoid missing discussions that are of interest to you and to which you might productively contribute.

But I question how much it can help. In fact, it may be fundamental that substantive discussions of Alexander the Great are more likely to arise in a general purpose group like Pro and Con or TGD than in a group devoted exclusively to him. They have the critical mass.

What I think we would get is finer versions of the coarse All topics filter. But even if someone had the time to monitor All topics all day, there is no guarantee that a discussion is about its topic title. And again, topic drift may just be fundamental to group communication. I think us lucky that there are relatively few LT members who take it upon themselves to police posts for being on topic.

I suppose, since there is a higher than average concentration of people who like to classify things here, that there could be a system whereby volunteer archivists monitored talk and tagged topics (and ranges within topics) with what they were really about. Or that might be annoying / creepy, like a hostess who wanders the room finding out what people are talking about so she can steer other guests over to them. (In which analogy, the other system is listing expected topics on the invitation or putting up signboards for different parts of the room for Sports, Politics, New Movies and Kids Now-a-days.)

I don't think I'm the first to observe that things would probably actually get better if Book Challenges, What are You Reading, and so on, which serve a genuine purpose, but do not promote discussion, were somehow not cut from the same cloth.

@ 59

Tags and supergroups/tents are not the same thing. They might have a somewhat similar purpose but they go about it through different and, often, non-compatible means.

Tags are very specific and individualistic whereas supergroups/tents would be general and communal. And the latter seems better suited to making the talk forums more user friendly. It really comes down to intent, and the initial idea here seems to be more about increasing ease of use rather than implementing another fully customizable feature.

@ 61

Maybe people went around tagging groups at first because it was new and therefore interesting? And maybe they stopped because, once the novelty wore off, they realized that it was too cumbersome to be worth the effort.

Whereas the new system would be more limited and therefore easier.

It's funny that you accuse of Tim of only being interested in finding support for his proposal but what exactly is it that you're doing with your constant jumping in for tag-based features?

Again, having more features does not automatically make for a better system. In fact, a more complicated system tends to decrease voluntary participation and lead to an increase in errors.

Edited to correct word order.

@ 67

Fair enough. But that really seems like it would be a place for topics that would have no other home. And if users found that a lot of topics in the "slop" group were similar then someone could start a new group. So it still seems like a positive thing rather than a negative.

I am with _Zoe_ & co on wanting this to be tag-watch-based. It seems like it would end up being de-facto tag based anyway: you would have to have someone deciding which 'tent' to put groups in, and you would probably have to have a mechanism for users to tell them when they missed something, so why not just repurpose the system we already have for categorizing? Having a staff member assigned to do group tagging would help, of course.

...also, if this happens, whether it's by tag or by tent, I would want my "interest" groups to display separated from my current watched groups. Right now, I can look at 'all groups' (which is usually 90% large social groups I'm not interested in) 'my books' (which is completely flooded by 'make a list' groups that don't have any read discussion of my books) and "my groups" and "my posts" (where I actually am interested.) It would be nice to have sometihng in-between where I can see stuff I'm more likely to care about, without losing the current "my groups" function.

@ 66

It's hardly meaningless. If I'm part of the Fantasy supergroup then it shows that I have an interest in fantasy. And why is organization not a reason in and of itself?

Actually, there really are real practicable differences between supergroups and tags (at least in this specific situation), see my post in 72.

It seems to me that Tim is trying to present things in an easier and cleaner way.

I think the tent approach is a great way to start simplifying talk at a glance and I think group tags could be beefed up to help more serious users.

The tents would be chosen by the owners and the tags are by the members. Between the two options I think it would make talk a lot more navigable. Making it simpler on one hand for newbies and others who don't want to put a lot of thought into it and a more in depth tools for those it matters to.

It's funny that you accuse of Tim of only being interested in finding support for his proposal but what exactly is it that you're doing with your constant jumping in for tag-based features?

Again, having more features does not automatically make for a better system. In fact, more a system more complicated tends to decrease voluntary participation and lead to an increase in errors.

I think this second statement actually says more in favour of my position than yours. I support using the features that we already have, and developing them further as needs arise. I support taking existing data and presenting it in a friendlier way. You support adding a whole extra system of group classification.

As for my supposedly unfair accusation, I've supported a large number of different proposals in an attempt to address Tim's "problems" with groups and talk, not just the ones in this thread. Many of the proposals are tag-based, but they build on the idea that Tim has suggested, looking at what his aims are and considering other ways of achieving those aims. All of my tag ideas are premised on Tim's original goals stated in this thread. I didn't start from the idea that we need to do more with group tags; that all came out of this discussion. I did take the time to consider the original proposal here and point out what I see to be its flaws, and I've refined my proposals to fit with points raised by Tim--most critically, I hadn't initially considered the idea of autofollow for grouptagwatch. He hasn't shown any flexibility or any particular interest in other ideas.

>76 readafew: Given that all this started from a discussion of absentee group creators, I don't think the creator-given approach is ideal (although of course, it would nicely create another need for admins where previously there was none). The tag cloud already highlights certain key groups: challenges, history, fantasy, religion, libraything, etc. Whatever simplified UI Tim was planning for these tent groups could equally be done with the top 10 tags, for example.

>75 JGKC: I don't think that more large groups are the solution to the entry barrier to Talk. If Talk is currently overwhelming, throwing people into a big jumble of different groups isn't going to make it better or easier. I'd rather see the focus on things like Supertouchstones, where people get into Talk via the Work page.

72> Tags are very specific and individualistic whereas supergroups/tents would be general and communal.

I don't see this at all. What makes tags individualistic and tents communal? Remember Tim hasn't said one word about how the tent names will be chosen so how much of your position is based on wishful thinking. Give me something concrete.

We can actually see already that the prominent group tags are very broad.

Okay, vaguely following this discussion led me to finally go look at the Group tags. I like those. Yes, they could use some combining. But even before that, similar tags tend to fall together so I can still catch most of the related Groups. If I ever feel the need to add more Groups to my list, that will be my first place to look.

@ 79

How can you possibly say that tags are not individualistic?

It's hardly wishful thinking to assume that Tim would ask for at least some input as to what the supergroup/tent names should be.

Of course tags are individualistic, but they can also be used, and are used, communally. That people have individually tagged books doesn't mean that they can't be fruitfully used by the community to find books on a certain subject.

Tags on groups would be even more communal because groups themselves are communal objects, unlike books which are individual to each member's catalog. So when people tag groups their thinking about how the tagging will be useful to the community rather than themselves, or at least a large portion will be.

@ 77

No, the second statement does not in any way support your position. I'm advocating for a simple interface that is new user friendly, you are not (go back and look at your post in 9). I'm no coder but I'm pretty sure that what Tim proposes wouldn't be any harder to implement than what you're asking for.

Think about a new user who wants to find a group that they're interested in. What would be easier for them?
a) having an existing list of supergroups/tents or
b) having to think of a tag before having to search for it

I'll save you the trouble, the correct answer is a. Because supergroups/tents are a very basic way of organization that is friendly to new users (and those who are less tech savvy), tags are an advanced way of organization that is much more functional but comes at the cost of ease of use.

> 84 Well, this isn't quite the question though. Because you can browse tags without searching for them, and a good structure would let you do that. The CURRENT structure lets you do that, although I think it can be cleaned up.

Moreover, you can use tags to create supergroups. They are not really exclusive.

I agree that it would be nice to have a cleaner and 'leveled' list of groups that is 'curated', but I think we can use member-created group tags to figure out where groups go.

@ 83

I'm talking about the initial process. Tags are individualistic at first and then become communal through aggregation. Supergroups/tents are communal at first and then become individualistic through the users choice to stay or leave them. I think that the latter works better for organizing groups.

And what about the other terms that I used? What about the part about general versus specific? Simple versus complicated? Easy versus hard? That's the real crux of the matter.

Think about a new user who wants to find a group that they're interested in. What would be easier for them?
a) having an existing list of supergroups/tents or
b) having to think of a tag before having to search for it

You're assuming some fundamental distinction that doesn't have to be there. The options can be:
a) having an existing list of supergroups/tents or
b) having an existing list of common tags

The UI can be the same. Likewise, the simple vs. complicated, easy vs. hard issue is all in the implementation.

I'll repeat what I said before: look at the most common tags. History, religion, challenges, librarything, etc. What "general" tents would you choose instead?

@ 85

Yes, you can browse tags without searching them. But look at them - there's 3 for book challenges (really 5 if you include the year tags), apparently the best example of the tag 'book-types' is the Green Dragon group, and the non-fiction tag isn't even listed on the page. Supergroups/tents are just less complex and more elegant.

I never said that supergroups and tags were exclusive. I said that they are similar in purpose but often different in execution. And how to execute the organization of groups is really what the discussion is about.

It seems, looking at your third paragraph, that's we're pretty much in agreement here: have a list of groups that is curated (supergroups) but obviously keep the current system of group tags for those who prefer that method. But how would be use member created group tags to sort the groups? Are you envisioning an automated system that would place all groups tagged as fiction into the fiction supergroup? Because I think that we would still need a way to let group creators place their groups in a specific supergroup.

I have not read most of this thread, nor do I intend to.

I like the idea. I would tie the "supergroups" to the group tags. I.e., turn the tags for groups into these supergroups with a lot more functionality than the group tags currently have. But if it's a new construct, I think that's fine too.

> 88 Are you envisioning an automated system that would place all groups tagged as fiction into the fiction supergroup? Because I think that we would still need a way to let group creators place their groups in a specific supergroup.

Yes, exactly. And I'd make the method that you think we need 'adding a tag'.

I mean, I'd probably make it a bit more formal than that. I'd come up with the list of supergroups. Then I'd have an actual person (or group of people, whatever) sort through all the tags that exist and place them into one or possibly two of those supergroups. So 'Ancient History' goes into 'History'. This creates the sup-super-groups.

Then when someone creates a group, I'd ask them to choose the supergroup their group goes into. Doing that would add it to the supergroup /and/ add the tag. It would also then give them a list of sup-super-groups to choose from, asking 'are any of these appropriate?' And they could add those as tags as well, etc.

But perhaps more importantly, if a member (or a certain number of members or whatever) adds 'Ancient History' to the group tags enough times, it gets added automatically to the sup group - which means also to the supergroup. So the group creator doesn't have to be aware of every possibility - group members en masse can make it happen too.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, and I'm sure there are holes in it, I'm just sort of making it up as I go. ;) But I think tags are a great opportunity to leverage group organization of groups /in conjunction/ with admin/creator organization.

@ 87

Non-fiction and children's are two major ones that come to mind. But the specifics of what the supergroup headings would be is incidental.

The point is that there are fundamental differences between tags and supergroups/tents. The latter is cleaner and simpler because groups would be limited to listing themselves within 1 or 2 groups. Right now, how many different tags cover the Green Dragon group? How about the various challenge groups? It's really a form of tyranny of the masses.

The new supergroup system be much more defined and delineated. All the challenge groups would be listed under the Challenge heading, all games groups under Games, the Green Dragon group (and other huge groups) wouldn't show up everywhere. I think that would make for a nicer experience for those of users who don't participate in the huge groups.

And the best part is that group tags will still be around for anyone who wants to use the system. How is that not a win-win situation?

86> And what about the other terms that I used? What about the part about general versus specific? Simple versus complicated? Easy versus hard? That's the real crux of the matter.

The most complicated user interface of all is one that implements two almost but not quite the same concepts. It would be a shame to have tags and tentname both existing at the same time unless they were consciously integrated as Aerrin suggests.

I still think tags alone can work though. All it needs is tag combination to merge the tags that are really the same but spelled differently. Member-driven work is always better than relying on LT staff to do all the work (because there's never enough time to do all the work).

91> The point is that there are fundamental differences between tags and supergroups/tents. The latter is cleaner and simpler because groups would be limited to listing themselves within 1 or 2 groups.

I think you'll find that one or two group limit will turn out to be a straitjacket.

@ 90

I don't have any objection per se to supergroup membership being decided by the tags used with a particular group.

But I would still like to have limits on the number of supergroups that a group can have memberships in. Because, as I said in my previous post, certain groups or types of groups are just too ubiquitous under the current tag system.

I'm amazed to see the lop-sided vote in favor given the significant opposition that has been raised? Have people been reading the thread? Am I totally in left-field? Do most people feel that its Tim's site and they should support whatever he wants to do?

I think it's the wording : "I think this is generally a good idea."

Yes, I do. Tricky though.

94> Because, as I said in my previous post, certain groups or types of groups are just too ubiquitous under the current tag system.

I must have missed this and I don't see it in #94. I looked at the tags for green dragon and I don't games or challenge in there. In what way is it to ubiquitous. If you limit the auto-follow feature to the more numerous tags (which could differ depending on how many total tags the group has) then that gets rid of most of the odd tags.

95> ? so the opposition is a couple vocal people, I wouldn't default that to significant opposition. Nor do I like the implied idea I voted because I'm a Tim toady.

After a certain point I have learned to say my piece then step back and I think there are a lot of people who don't want to vocalize their ideas because the responses they will likely receive will feel like an attack and so keep quite except for the small anonymous vote.

I've changed my vote from yes to no, until I know more about exactly what would change and what would be "helped" by this.

29: "The fact that you joined it would be listed on your profile"

1: "You can unfollow any group within an interest group you follow."

So... how does that work, exactly? Can I follow a sub-group in the interest group *without* being connected to the interest group in any way? Would it be possible to, say, join a "World War 2" group but not have my name associate with the overarching "History" tent?

I'm getting more and more confused with what exactly this proposal would look like, how it would run.

I think this sounds like a good solution for small groups that don't get much traffic. I don't think it will be at all useful for challenge groups, but they work differently than most groups.

I also wonder if large groups should be excluded from tents? Maybe when a group reaches, say, 500 members, it would be considered too big to fit in a tent? I mean, if the idea is to help members find small/new/specialized groups of interest, then filling the tent with a couple of groups that are already massive seems as if it would just smother those smaller groups.

@ 95

Yeah, I think that you are totally in left field for this particular issue. It's a really good idea with a huge upside and no discernible downside (because tags would still be there for those who only want to use that system).

@ 97

I didn't specifically say that the Green Dragon group was listed under the challenge or games tag, just that it seems to be one of the groups that is very broad and therefore can be seen under many tags (they have threads on games, purchases, and tons of miscellaneous topics).

Like I said, I don't have a problem with using tags to sort groups into supergroups per se. But I would have a problem with granting certain groups a greater number of supergroup memberships based solely on the number of tags of members with a particular group. Again, that just seems to be a tyranny of the masses kind of problem.

98> Nor do I like the implied idea I voted because I'm a Tim toady.

I didn't call you a toady. I gave three questions one of which suggested that I don't know what I'm talking about. The other two could have been addressed to any of the 80+ people who voted yes on Tim's poll. I was just trying to get a feel for where all the yes votes are coming from and whether I should just crawl under a rock.

Whatever else happens - you should not just crawl under a rock.

I'll admit I haven't read the entire thread. In fact, since it's gotten up to 103 messages, I've skipped most of it. But has anyone thought of having subgroups? There would most likely be a damn lot of groups in each of the umbrellas, and having subgroups under them -- for example, putting those three groups mentioned in the first post into History and than into, say, Ancient and European subsets. And perhaps, like group tags, any user* could suggest a classification for a group, with (maybe) the rate choosing such-and-such influencing the "relevance".

----------
* Alternatively, this could be restricted to members of the group in question.

Hey, Matt, can you help me move Jeff's rock out of his reach?

Perhaps I'll just sit on the rock and listen to the dialog for a while.

> 105: Gladly.

Just so I am 'getting it'

Is what this amounts to the main heading, I'll use History. That is just a title. Not a group, not usable. Under the title would be like chapters in a book. Ancient History and so on.

That the actual group that is already going would just be listed under a title. Nothing would really change. Just that a new user would be able to find all types of historical groups under that title?

#108

That is how I understand it. With the addition that a group like "Genealogy" could fit under both "History" and "Hobbies"

> 109: Yeah, something like that - ar least to my understanding.

I really like the idea. It would the make site user friendly to new people. I can see where there will be issues though like TLCrawford mentions. Some could reasonably belong to more than one. Good thing it is not me who has to make the decision.

But when you "join" the History tent you'd be effectively joining all the sub-groups, which you could then leave individually if you wanted.

>112 jjwilson61: Wouldn't it just be easier to join the groups you want to that are under the title? Do we have to join the whole group. I thought it was just a title.

Still, I think it is a great idea on the whole.

113> Wouldn't it just be easier to join the groups you want to that are under the title?

There you go. You just punctured the balloon and let all the air out.


Still, I think it is a great idea on the whole.

?!?!?!?!?!

Uh oh. Did I say something wrong? I like the idea of all similar subjects grouped together. I'd rather just choose the individual groups myself instead of having to leave a bunch I am not interested in.. But if I can't, I would still vote yes to it. It just makes things easier to find.

From the OP- "Frankly, I'm too convinced this is a good idea to entertain another battle. I apologize for that feeling, but it's my feeling. So, if you're opposed to this, I urge you to figure out how to live with it, eviscerate it or redirect it somehow."

I think there is something to 'founder's gut instinct'. Without such a thing, LT might still be mired in focus groups and planning stages. There's always egress and ingress when it comes to members and member participation rates. I think you have a good feel for the terrain. And changes that carry a risk.

115> It sounds like what you want is just a way to organize the groups. That is much different than what Tim has proposed.

The poll says generally a good idea and if you think that the proposed structure is good obviously you can/should vote yes no matter what you think about the method behind the structure. (Tents, tags, etc?) Note that some of the tag skeptic arguments have been based on the assumption that tag proponents don't want the UI that Tim has proposed. (If your not with him your against him?) For what it's worth I changed my vote from yes to no since the tag approach makes more and more sense while the tent approach seems to be based on the same claims that tents are easy, simple, essentially good but without anyone being really able to explain why tags are less so.

But the tag-based tent structure would make sense too... (Was it Aerrin who posted that?)

Okay, I 've read through all the messages, and I have problems with the opposition. I've been on this site for 2 years and I guess I'm just not techno enough to understand how grouptagging would work (does it already exist?). I am the creator of several groups and I don't remember ever "tagging" it. Was I suppose to do something? I never use tags for searching unless it's within my own collections because I understand my tag definitions but not necessarily everyone else's.

As to Tim''s proposal, I think that it's a wonderful idea. Just like Tim, I would love to be able to say that I have an interest in History and be able to see messages from all the history groups and then decide myself which ones I want to follow. I'm sure that there are several groups out there that might peak my interest but I can't find them because the list of all groups is just too long and has no real organization that I can see.

If I click on the group tag, again I still have a huge list of groups that I can't see at a glance (and are there groups that aren't tagged?). I think that Tim's idea (I could be wrong) would give me a list of the groups in the tent and then I can choose which ones that I want to look at.

So, Tim, you have my whole-hearted support.

I've voted no on this - I think you're responding to a question of "why groups fail" when you should be asking a question of "why groups succeed" - the failures are much less important than the successes.

The groups I've been involved with that succeed (the Salon, Reading Globally) are really driven by one or two people with a good idea willing to invest a lot of time to gently guide/motivate/prod/energize the discussion. I'm in favor of whatever energizes those people. This, to me, simply seems irrelevant or worse to that process.

I sense this focus is on enabling a user to pop in and out of individual discussions, wich I don't think is what groups are about. It makes it easier for a heavy user who follows the whole site, but that's not going to describe many of us, who come here for one or two small groups with a bit of comraderie. It's increased regular participation in the whole group, rather than a quick hop in or out of individual discussions, that are what groups are all about for me.

113-115: As I understand it, the idea of opting-out rather than opting in, is that if a new group starts in your umbrella area, you automatically see it and have a chance to participate in it. If it turns out not to be of interest then you opt out. But the new group gets the benefit of all the umbrella group people being "members" at least at first.

It also means you don't have to go hunting for new groups to make sure you're not missing anything that would be of interest.

>121 aulsmith: I don't think anyone was discussing opting out vs. opting in. The currently existing tags could equally be used for an opt-out system, where someone automatically starts watching any group that gets tagged History.

I sense this focus is on enabling a user to pop in and out of individual discussions, wich I don't think is what groups are about. It makes it easier for a heavy user who follows the whole site, but that's not going to describe many of us, who come here for one or two small groups with a bit of comraderie. It's increased regular participation in the whole group, rather than a quick hop in or out of individual discussions, that are what groups are all about for me.

I completely agree with this.

If I click on the group tag, again I still have a huge list of groups that I can't see at a glance (and are there groups that aren't tagged?). I think that Tim's idea (I could be wrong) would give me a list of the groups in the tent and then I can choose which ones that I want to look at.

How are these two things any different? In one case you see a list of the groups with the tag (and possibly start watching them automatically); in the other case you see a list of groups in the tent (and possibly start watching them automatically).

As for the point someone made earlier about wanting to restrict groups to only a couple of categories, that could also be done with tags (if it were deemed desirable), where there was some easy-browse organization that included groups only under the headings of their two most prominent tags.

I voted yes, although I think I might differ from Tim in the granularity I see in the supergroups. I think I imagine a few more top-level categories. The idea of nesting is also appealing to me. Still, any form of clustering that would automatically allow viewing is a nice idea to me. If the idea ever changed so that individual groups could not be excluded, that would be a game-changer, but as it stands as a general idea, I'm in support.

I'm also intrigued by the high number of people who voted in favor of the idea but didn't Talk about it in this thread. What's the ratio of lurkers to talkers in general, I wonder, and does getting to the heart of this distinction tell us important things about the success of Talk as a whole? How do you get feedback from the silent majority (not just in this thread, but in general)? I think this points to a hidden strength of polls within LT for important feedback. Tim can always characterize voters according to information he knows without forcing members to openly vocalize positions in detail.

#123 Well, I am one of the voters who briefly talked, but I don't have the time to keep reposting when I don't have anything to add to the post I originally made. I can only hope that it was read and understood. This is the way I generally behave on the web, so it is not just LT.

And I agree with the "hidden strength of polls" idea. Not everyone has the time or energy or ease with the English language or stomach for vigorous debate to post, but this gives everyone who comes to the thread a mechanism to make their opinions know. To translate this into US politics, not everyone goes on MSNBC or Fox, or watches them, but they still have positions and express them in the voting booths (although, sadly, an embarrassingly small percentage of the population).

I'd be curious why Tim supports the idea of a hierarchical organization for groups but doesn't like the idea of hierarchical tags for books.

I added this and various other group-related ideas to the poll thread.

Tim can always characterize voters according to information he knows without forcing members to openly vocalize positions in detail.

I'd be interested to hear from him about how the votes break down.

>123 SchanleyMedia:


I'm also intrigued by the high number of people who voted in favor of the idea but didn't Talk about it in this thread.

Well, I've been extremely busy, and it takes much less time to vote than to comment extensively.



Not really. I don't usually vote in polls, particularly those posted by members as opposed to Tim, et. al. Too often, they are not written objectively or clearly.

#128

I agree, sometimes polls are written in the styly of the classic question, "Have you stoped beating your wife?" There is not much difference however you answer.

#128/129: I think this poll was guaranteed to be in Tim's favour. When the sentences immediately prefacing a poll are: "Frankly, I'm too convinced this is a good idea to entertain another battle... So, if you're opposed to this, I urge you to figure out how to live with it, eviscerate it or redirect it somehow." then I think you bias people to accept the idea since they don't really have a choice. Plus his positive reasonings were given leading up to the poll. Also, I think people are generally inclined to agree with Tim since they assume he knows better than them. That and people are more likely to say 'yes' in polls whatever they be about. And the word 'generally' weakens the stance of the 'yes' vote significantly.

(Thus, the poll was not necessarily more biased than other polls, but certainly not less. That's the nature of non-scientific polling, not anyone's fault. I just don't see that Tim is somehow magically better at unbiased poll-creation than anyone else.)

One thing that's interesting here is whether every group would or should belong to a supergroup--that is, are we making a classification structure or what I termed an "interest group"--a cluster of groups that people would actually want to follow?

It seems to me there are quite a few groups that don't fit under an umbrella people would actually want to be part of. What is Hogwarts actually--YA? Fantasy? Seems like whatever you put it under it would utterly command the group's contents. The same is not so for all the little history or language topics that get lost. Does it make sense to have a supergroup for all challenges?

Incidentally, this offers an easy way to resolve this issue--to the extent a 9/1 vote needs "resolving." We could roll out a few supergroups, and see how they go.

On the topic of tags vs. classification I have much to say, of course. Basically this boils down to:

1. Because two features can be represented by the same data structure does not mean they are equivalent. Tags can of course be used for almost any structure and have remarkable flexibility over alternate features. (Indeed, I long championed tags over collections for just this reason!) But user interface choices--even naming--can produce a vastly different result.
2. I am not adverse to a group tag watch, if people really want that.(1)

Lastly, NONE of this has any impact on super-touchstones or other efforts to improve Talk. They are in the works. Tonight, in fact, I made some rather critical little changes to data structures. And Chris (conceptdawg) and I have split the Talk work up between us. He's got the actual posting of messages and touchstones. I've got the topic page and super-touchstoning. We'll get this done as soon as we can reasonably do it.

1. I anticipate the talk page will look more like the search page--more options, but arranged under headings that show and hide as necessary, keeping the fundamental simplicity.

(so excited!)

Dear Brightcopy,

The word you are looking for is squee.

Sincerely,
Tim

131- Not sure. Some of the bigger, popular, posted often to groups are almost tents in their own right. A lot goes on inside them. I don't think they need any 'discovery' help at the moment. Leave them till last? Leave them singletons?

#131 -- It seems to me there are quite a few groups that don't fit under an umbrella people would actually want to be part of. What is Hogwarts actually--YA? Fantasy? Seems like whatever you put it under it would utterly command the group's contents.

Exactly what I was saying in post 100. I mean, unless you wanted a Harry Potter umbrella, with Hogwarts Express and all of the little HP-related groups, there's not a good place under an umbrella -- and putting it in, say, Fantasy (which would probably also encompass Fantasy Fans and The Green Dragon, two other big and busy groups) would just make that tent so full of talk threads that it would be impossible for the casual user to follow -- and the threads from less high-traffic groups would get lost.

I still think that tents will be most useful for small groups, especially if larger groups are not included in the tents.

> 131

Your post clarified a few things for me, and I like this idea more thinking about it /not/ as classification, but as a quick-and-dirty way to add a lot of groups that fit neatly together.

I'd love to see it rolled out with a few test cases. History, maybe YA or children's. Possibly a few genres that could bundle series-or-author-specific groups.

Also, re: supertouchstones and other upcoming changes, as instructed:

SQUEE!

#131 (Tim): Does it make sense to have a supergroup for all challenges?

Yes, please.

133> I pondered squeeing, but decided it was unmanly.

>137 qebo:

Okay Anyone else agree? I'm fine either way.

Unless a challenge is really huge and needs its own "tent" then I would expect to find it in a supergroup where the challenges are gathered under one roof.

I would hope that all challenges fall within a single supergroup.

* And in a spirit of full disclosure I must confess that at first glance I thought that Tim (in 139) was unsure of the manliness of "squee".

@ 137/139

I agree.

It makes sense to me to see all the challenges in a supergroup.

I think the challenges belong together.

I think challenges "belong together," but I wonder: does someone's membership in a challenge mean that they are likely to be interested in any other challenge that comes along, or on the contrary, that they now have their challenge mapped out, and are in fact less likely to be interested in joining other challenge groups?

If the latter, it might make sense to have an additional something like a "group class" that provides the indexing function of a supergroup without its membership function.

145: As I understand this proposal, it will be possible to join/watch a specific group just as it is now, but _in addition_ it will be possible to join/watch a supergroup. I might watch the supergroup in order to be alerted when new challenge groups are created, or to assess compatibility, especially toward the end of the year, but unwatch most of them, or unwatch the supergroup once I'd decided which specific groups to join.

So, who decides what groups go in what tents? Who decides what groups are too big to go in a tent?

2. I am not adverse to a group tag watch, if people really want that.(1)

In the polling thread, the most popular recent group ideas are:
1) List view of all group tags
2) Bring back group zeitgeists
2) Related groups section on group pages

NONE of this has any impact on super-touchstones or other efforts to improve Talk.

We all know that development time spent on one feature is development time not spent on another feature. I'm glad that supertouchstones will get done, but there are going to be other features/bug fixes getting sacrificed for this.

146> My understanding of the proposal is that if you join a supergroup you'll start seeing all the threads in all the groups at once unless you specifically unjoin some of them, assuming that you use the My Groups option of Talk. There was nothing I saw about any sort of notification when a new group joined the tent, except for the new threads that start appearing.

I'm not clear what the connection will be between watching/unwatching groups within the supergroup and watching/unwatching groups generally. If I join a supergroup that contains some groups I was already watching, and then I unjoin the supergroup, will I still be watching the groups that I was watching initially?

I never had much of an opinion one way or the other on the supergroups (thus my only posts on this thread being tangentially related). I can see it possibly being really cool, but possibly also annoying. I'd feel much better if each supergroup could have an option for "show all threads from this supergroup" or "show only threads from subscribed subgroups in this supergroup." I could see wanting it different ways in different supergroups.

Plus, having it an option satisfies Tim's Law of LT Features.

>150 brightcopy: Yeah, I'd much rather have filtering options for the groups I'm already interested in.

144>

There are two distinct types of challenges, though; vaguely topical types like the Dewey Challenge or "Reading Globally", and something like the 75 Book Challenge which is as I understand it not even really about the number, but more a set of people's "what I read this year" threads. The lower-traffic topical groups would be completely swamped by the 75-Book threads.

I haven't had a chance to read all the responses, but I just want to say that I think this is an awesome idea. I never go looking for new groups, but I'd love a way to automatically see everything related to comic books or feminism.

>153 ryvre: I don't think "comic books" or "feminism" is likely to make it to big-tent status; this is precisely the case when a broader tag-based feature would be better.

If u go by size, which seems to be your challenge, perhaps describe sizes of groups:
Quiet lane walk (for 2)
After Hours over jazz (2-8)
Coffee House (9 - 30)
Big Tent (100 - 1000)

152 (lorax): Along with tents, I'd like to see other ways of filtering talk threads, precisely because of the problem you mention. Whether groups are categorized and filtered by tags or tents or "mine", some groups have many times more threads than others, and overwhelm any Talk list. I see the proposed tent feature as going part way to solving one problem (bringing to my attention groups that may be of interest), but not all problems.

Here's a thought:

Or to put it another way:

157, 158> I think we already have a method of organizing groups. Someone's going to have to show me how creating tent categories is going to be substantially different than creating tags.

>161 jjwilson61: I agree.

Or,

But

I mean ways of viewing Talk for various sets of groups. I guess I need to make new polls.

AnnaClaire partially got at this with her new polls, but I'll try to clarify what I was thinking:Edited for an attempt at clarification: I want to see all the History groups together with each other, potentially separate from my other groups.

(I know, saving this poll is probably a lost cause....)

But Tim's already said he's going to do the combination option (groups+starred+something else that I can't think of right now). Are there any other ideas on the table?

167> I don't think you said that right. If you're following different sets all at once then you're just following all of them. Did you mean to be able to specify different subsets of your groups to view at any one time

>168 jjwilson61:
I think more brainstorming is in order. Perhaps in a new thread, since this one's already getting long.

Okay, I've deleted my unclear polls and added new ones that I hope are better, though I think I've lost some of the focus of the first ones.

>170 jjwilson61: Heh, apparently not clear. I meant I could follow multiple history groups together with each other, not with what I'm already following.

I think AnnaClaire may be right that a new thread is in order.