River and News

So it could be like this

Subscriptions are things authors do to control their news. Authors can subscribe to any group, including personal groups, regular groups, and river groups. Perhaps they can even subscribe to tag and title rooms, if they are interested in a tag. Whatever they are subscribed to, posts and comments in that appear in the author’s news.

Rivers are composite or connected groups. They are a group that includes thoughts from other groups as if those thoughts were the groups own. The exception being private, draft, and editing of the thoughts, which would always be as is now and controlled via password to the group where the thought lives.

The big river is all thoughts in all groups, but will probably be impractical in any sizable domain.

Only thing I am not sure about is if you can connect a group to another river group and have it be recursive. Not sure if that query will be practical yet. If not, it can be such that a river group only gets the posts from the groups it is directly connected to, which may be better anyway, not just for the sake of the query cost, but just for the sake of welmment of readers. Since it is a proven singularity in our verses that there are less than 7 connections between all things, then connecting to 5 or seven river groups would end up including all other things.

Singularity: A single point that a collective agrees to reproduce exactly the same in each members individual realities, thus making it appear to be a principal or law. But it is not an actual law, only an agreed upon single point. There is only one actual law, the Law of Attraction. Practical laws are governed by excitement. If it is exciting, it is lawful. If it is not, it is against the law. There are no others.


Holmes says
It’s true that a teacher is grouping together students, because that is what she is interested in, her class. But a baker could group together food blogs with recipes, or restaurants. And he also would not want necessarily want the secondary groups of those groups. It’s a clean line.

Seth says
seth 2016-02-09 11:48:59 [item 19902#45068]
hmmm editing/thinking out loud …

i do not see any need for recursions in true groups (“river groups”?) at all … that seems like a nightmare.  

so if {A connectedTo  B, C,  D}, then connections like {B connectedTo A} would be disallowed.  That certainly would stop recursion, no?

whereas in single person groups … journals … blogs … home rooms …whatever  ← we really do need to name them …

if you subscribe to me, then i may well want to subscribe to you … so we want to allow
if {PA subscribeTo PB}, then {PB subscibeTo PA} would need to be allowed.  So PA’s news would have PB’s thoughts and visa versa. 

hmmm … just thinking ...
dA 2016-02-09 12:37:01 [item 19902#45071]
Yep. Subscriptions are no problem. They are just simple lists of what an individual is subscribed to.

In river recursion, I am only talking simple recursion, i.e. if you include Teacher Jane’s classroom river, do you get any other rivers her classroom river includes? I say not. You only get posts that are from singular groups her classroom river is connected to, which of course, would be her students personal groups. But she also includes the lunchroom river, you don’t get that, and you don’t get any rivers her students included in their groups either. By this, circular recursion would be automatically handled, and the singularity of 7 connections would be avoided … and no one would be overwhelmed with thoughts.
seth 2016-02-09 15:25:49 [item 19902#45079]
well even with that i think you are delving too deep. i would cut it off at the first.   if this were facebook you would be saying that if i like a page that i would get all the posts from everybody who liked the page.   me thinks that is far too broad.  
dA 2016-02-09 15:36:52 [item 19902#45080]
No, really, it’s not like that. There is no model for this on FB. The subscriptions would be similar to FB, but the river model is wholly different. When the teacher sets up her classroom river, she is setting up a river like view. It probably will never contain it’s own posts, it could, but it doesn’t have to, just like our current river does not have to, but maybe could. So if I only included that, I would be including probably nothing at all.

What I want is the teachers view, which is of all the thoughts of her class. That will be all the single group posts included in her classroom river … which is exactly what I want to include in my river, or subscribe to in my news.
seth 2016-02-10 04:54:52 [item 19902#45098]
i don’t know … can’t tell unless feel it … but it sounds like you are designing around a specific narrow purpose … yet this filtering must take place for many different purposes.   thoughts of friends (first level) is reasonable,  thoughts of friends of friends, might just be too much ← maybe that should be an option the way it is on FB in some places.   cutting off recursion can be done, we did it in Cybermind … er, doing it in SQL, well i’ll leave that up to you wink
dA 2016-02-10 05:03:49 [item 19902#45099]
It has nothing to do with friends. You keep talking about this as if it were a personal thing. It has nothing at all to do with people or friends or person to person or person to group relationships in any way. It is about grouping things together, completely independent of people. But anyway, for whatever reason, you do have to see these things to see them … that does seem to be the case as it is.
any relationship between people … like connections, or even if they have all joined the same group … creates the same perdicament.  your description does not rule out the phenomena to which i am referring.   but yeah totally … you got something in mind there to solve the filtering of river(s) … i can’t simulate it in my mind without getting an explosion of posts just when things start to get interesting.   but, hell yes, i want to see it actually working laugh anyway.