Was Feeling Domains now is a Jumble about headers groups & admin stuff

 

You can edit this sticky thought to be this groups header.
You can delete this if you don’t want a group header.
Add more thoughts to your group with the pencil in the menu bar.
Have fun!  
Why can’t I send this to the back room or make it disappear besides deleting it.  What are the ramifications of deleting it?

2 KINDS OF GROUPS ?  …………  WTF?

Comments


Holmes says
Tristin 2016-03-11 10:13:32 [item 20402#48878]
I don’t see it in the front room?
I do see it in the back room?

Two kinds of groups? No. All the same. Rather your identity get’s it’s own group. It’s called your “profile group”. It’s a normal group in every way as a group but it is special to your identity.
M. 2016-03-11 10:16:29 [item 20402#48879]
I can’t see it when I click on back room under the dark glases icon at the top while in this group.
M. 2016-03-11 10:17:00 [item 20402#48880]
This item was created when I created this group
Ah, okay. I think it is the space in the group name messing with the shades. Will check it out.

Si says
Tristin 2016-03-11 10:24:57 [item 20402#48882]
Fixed.
M. 2016-03-11 10:28:26 [item 20402#48884]
still can’t get it out of the back room since the editing tag gives me some kind of code thingy & there is no simple way to delete a tag.
OKAY. the code thingy is so I can find the bugs. Please copy and paste it in fbi.

You CAN delete tags anytime, even in multiple. Just put a ! on the front of the tag name in the tag box and submit it. You don’t have to use the editor.

!back room,!backroom

 

Si says
You know you can add multiple tags at a time too? Just put a comma between them?

And you can even mix delete and add at the same time.

this is great,i love it,!sucks,love,!stupid

That would add this is great and i love it and love and remove sucks and stupid

Holmes says
seth 2016-03-12 06:10:27 [item 20402#49008]
interesting that Mark stumbled here too when he was opening a new group.   I do believe that it is either fixed now … or soon will be. 
Yep. Group profiles could be a thing, though not really all that necessary. One can simply write what they want in their sticky. Accessing group settings via a page instead of a pop-up would also be nice, but not really needed either since we have the pop up now and can better do that in the future when more control over it has become.

The idea of making a a specific group represent an identity is the oddball thing. Not saying it is wrong per se, but it is the only thing that blows gaskets in people’s thinking. It’s unique to here and not seen elsewhere.

Holmes says

You see the thing is, the area that is constantly in contention, and the area where Mark and others do and will stumble, is the idea that there is a group that "is a person". It's something you have been dearly attached to, for whatever reason. Possibly because of how you started out doing groups at fbi.

But maybe it would be good to take a step back and see if that is really a thing. It is an area that a whole lot of special considerations in the code, and in user processes, and in user understanding, are tied up with. There may be a much simpler and better way to deal with users.

Just saying.

proudly scribed using markdown?


Seth says
And yes to be clear … i have accepted the principle that groups are issued a number that can be used until a group is permanently named … and it can function perfectly even if it does not ever acquire a named status.  

Seth says
seth 2016-03-12 06:40:23 [item 20402#49015]
Now here in thinking domaina we issue each person their own special group that represents just them.   We have called that their “profile group”.  G+ does just about the same thing.    

The same feature of being able to remember and call out this simple name of the person on the web applies equally to a person’s profile group as it does to a community group.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 06:53:51 [item 20402#49019]
Now here I think you are more talking about your own desires than the general need of people. Many people have found today, after jumping on that bandwagon at first, that having a well established whole web identity is more of a nuisance than a help. FB went through cycles, back and forth, to finally arrive at a model that works better for the population at large, and establishes a person as part of a like minded community, instead of as an individual in the whole world.

Not that a person can’t be a fully public identity if they want to be, but any good system should allow them not to be in any way they desire. It should never assume about that … even if it has the person well known for it’s own internal use.
well then now we give them the same ability.   they can establish an authentic identity and use it in thinking domains … or they can run around and do whatever …. we do not insist on them having an authentic name … and now we don’t even need to insist that they name their identity group … see group 196.  

so, apparently, we have giggeled around to allow that freedom.  just don’t lock them out of being authentic with a real name if that is what they want and earn … see group seth.

Seth says
M. 2016-03-12 07:00:42 [item 20402#49021]
Lots of words.  A group is just a compartment for postings of a collective kind (like politics, loa, projects … etc) . One or many people (humans) can contribute postings.  The main idea for the confusion is that humans like a header & some statement of what the kind of postings are going to be found in a group (just like G+; less like Facebook) .  It would be nice if there were a template for that .  I have no trouble, making my own via the sticky thought feature, however.  I still have trouble formatting pictures & text together to form a nice header. Probably mostly for profiles 
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:10:37 [item 20402#49023]
I pretty much agree with all of that.

I even have long range plans that will make formatting your own thoughts easier by utilizing draft mode to give you additional composition abilities that are not available thought any normal RTE. Things like more exact image placement and control … and preformatted areas and panels you can drag and drop from a widget library.
?

Seth says
seth 2016-03-12 06:35:22 [item 20402#49014]
well there are about two different things being discussed here.  i’ll deal with just one of them in this thread … and the other in a subsequent thread.  

A group has identity … there is no question of that.   Here are two examples of groups having identity elsewhere …

https://www.facebook.com/Renton-Food-Co-Op-558899370810347/   a Facebook Group
https://plus.google.com/communities/115591368588047305300 a G+ group

Note that each of those identities has a clear human readable title. 

Frequently it is necessary to call out these groups in places where using a long URL is not feasable.   Hence many websites have given them a short name that people can talk about in voice on the phone and other such venues.  Thinking domains certainly wants to do that too …  just go to fastblogit.com/poolefarm and see pictures of Bonnie’s farm.   That is a feature that there is absolutely no reason to give up.  

 
Tristin 2016-03-12 06:42:28 [item 20402#49016]
Okay. Purely in respect to a “group” (generic) I can buy that. And also note that though it can be a good thing, not all groups need it. Only some do. Others would never need it at all. We don’t need tiggerandhobbs or unit tests or prototype to ever have outside names for instance.
seth 2016-03-12 06:46:31 [item 20402#49017]
okay …  so there needs to be a process where the system asks a group owner what they want their short identity name to be … as well as the titel of that group.   Then the process can begin of that name being burned into our namespace.  Once it is burned in, then it should always appear in all hyperlinks that the system generates – no exceptions.  

The same really applies to the the short url name of a person’s profile group.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:05:01 [item 20402#49022]
The title of a group is really a quite different thing than a permalink url. They do not need to match at all. And the title can always be changed. And is only shown in system lists anyway. Mixing them in thought and deed is simply making a can of worms where none needs to be.

Personal profiles should not be required to have a permalink. That should be a well considered option for those who actually need it, however the option is obtained. People should not be willfully forced into the global community with a short url.

 
seth 2016-03-12 07:10:45 [item 20402#49024]
as far as i can see then you are agreeing with what i said.   I also said that the permant link is different that the title.   The title has less restrictions as to grammar and is designed to be humanly readable … and clear as such to a human.  

And yes we have arrived at a system that does not force a person to assign a name to their profile group.  

Right?
Tristin 2016-03-12 07:18:18 [item 20402#49027]
Right. So now all we need are two processes. One to choose an optional permanence for a general group, and one to choose an optional permanence for a profile group. They will have different rules applied to the available names you can choose.

It is not the time to go into exact rules. Though I can say that it would now be possible to relax the requirement of adding a .1 on the end of a group name. Since it is a deliberate process and not being done for you, we can easily consider that drive by users won’t go the extra mile to get permanence and thus the first person who wants an available name is intending to actually use it.
okay.   a group getting a permanent name can be a totally different game than a person getting a permanent name.  

but we really need to start playing both of those games … let the first version of them pop now.   find a place in the system wher the request is made and a place where a wizard or master or a algorithm can grant the request.

Holmes says
seth 2016-03-12 07:13:15 [item 20402#49025]
i have just introduced the idea that when we ask what a group title or a requested url group name … we also ask at that same time in that same context what the owner of that place wants its title to be.   Right now those two questions are separated in totally different places … one under group settings ..the other maybe some place in the registration process.   I am just saying they should be together.  
No problem there. If a person is creating permanence they can have the option of changing the title at the same time. And this could be part of the new general group dialog.

But the more usual need we haven’t yet addressed is to just set the title of someone's profile group for the first time.  Assuming it would be factored from their initial alias is an aukward assumption and quite possibly wrong. Especially if their initial alias is chosen as a test or a joke or flippantly.

We also don’t want to burden them with changing their profile group title every time they change their alias.

So what is left is to start it out with some meaningful common thing, like “Author Profile” or any other good thing like that.

Holmes says
seth 2016-03-12 08:09:47 [item 20402#49045]
It is a mistake to assume that what you are using and calling an “alias” is the same thing as the perminant name of the group.  You, in particular,  are using alias quite differently than one should ever use the url name of their self.  These url names are not supposed to be changed on a whim or a verse jump.  I am not saying that you, or others, should not do that if they wish and have the right … just saying that we cannot insist that is the way.

I said that to say, the name that can be so easily changed internally, can not be same name that the person requests to be in their permanent url.  
Tristin 2016-03-12 08:16:42 [item 20402#49050]
Hummmm. Never assumed or said anything like that. Not sure what your saying about permanence either. The permanence name and an alias are entirely different things. There should not be any assumptions between them, that is what I said, including the one that they cannot be the same name as you said. They are unrelated. If they are the same somewhere, that is no one else’s business.

What I am saying is that because they are not related, we should not use the alias as part of the “initial” group profile name. Which only leaves us with static names like “Author Profile” or some other good thing like that.
seth 2016-03-12 08:19:58 [item 20402#49052]
well okay then … seems we are in agreement yes
Tristin 2016-03-12 08:24:44 [item 20402#49055]
Then leave it as “Author Profile” for the starting profile group name?

I would also like to surface it on the profile group settings page even thought it is technically not a user setting, and, as you suggested, include it wherever group names are chosen. But I am just making sure to leave it as “Author Profile” for new born profile groups since you have commented on that so many times before and I want to be done with this in that piece of code one way or another.
seth 2016-03-12 08:37:23 [item 20402#49057]
well “Author Profile” is a good title for a new born person’s profile group.  ← agreed

Beyond that i don’t really know what you are saying.  I am saying that that title is chosen by the author, of the profile or the group when they request a perminant url.  
Requesting a permanent url is not a normal process. It is a well considered deliberate choice. We need lots of good paths to change the profile group name that are not related to permanence. We don’t want to “trick” people into obtaining permanence, we want them to get used to the space and make it their own in all the other ways so that when them come to the decision of permanence, if ever, they can make a really good and intelligent choice about the name.

My own permanence name at FB would have been different today if they had not made it a more “up front” thing to do when I first signed up with FB. Now it is buried in their settings and one is well told the implications.