Groups
-
Continuing the discussion from Status Thread. Post your current status here, just like you'd do on WhatsApp.:
Should we start a topic to request to join one of them (or maybe get a different group going, for those not covered)?
Experimenting with groups at the moment. They may, or may not, continue for the long term. Currently considering groups for ISO3166 countries (with the intention that people ask to be ...
Unfortunately (for me) only staff can modify group memberships...
Current list (will update as/when the need arises.)
-
Please put me down for area_usa.
-
I'm a gbr.
-
Put blakey under area_51.
-
I'm alone :(
-
Sooo, I can see members, and I can see all posts, from all threads, lumped together with no particular rhyme or reason, written by them.
What.
-
-
And me.
Which part? You don't have to be too specific; a post code will be fine.
EDIT: Also your house number.
-
-
anyone in my group want to meet up for some NSA sexy fun?
we can all cram in this phone box
and get to know each other
Filed Under: Terrible Puns
-
Because we (err, @PJH) can.
-
Which part? You don't have to be too specific; a post code will be fine.
area_gbr_NE1...
-
Notice how the infiniscroll doesn't unload earlier things as it goes along - so the scrollbar works as expected?
-
I suppose there's no way for non-staff to see a list of existing groups?
Tried http://what.thedailywtf.com/groups btw.
-
Notice how the infiniscroll doesn't unload earlier things as it goes along - so the scrollbar works as expected?
Even on /t/1000? That's going to be one large page if that's the case.
ISTR that they expanded the number of nodes they keep around, but I'm certain they do - at some point - start getting unloaded.
-
I suppose there's no way for non-staff to see a list of existing groups?
There doesn't appear to be - I've looked as well. Bear in mind there is the concept of 'private' groups:
-
I suppose there's no way for non-staff to see a list of existing groups?
Additionally, I don't think there's a(n easy) way of a user to find out which groups they belong to either. i.e. Something akin to this admin screen:
-
Yeah - although as not every participant there is in my group, it doesn't show them all.
Just hold page down and it keeps loading while leaving the rest loaded. It's how it should work elsewhere.
-
Oh you meant on the /group/xxx page. Hmm.
-
-
you sure you want to be in that group Keith? It may not be what you expect...
I might be in it
-
-
-
I'll think about it...
I don't want to intrude on your, @Arantor's and @algorythmics's antics.
-
Even on /t/1000? That's going to be one large page if that's the case.
It used to, but no longer (on desktop; it's different on mobile). For most topics, you get a much better user experience (less lag) by not unloading things too much. Kudos to @sam for the changes he did on that.
(
area_gbr
for me, please)
-
area_usa please.
-
-
I'm alone :(
A group for those not lucky enough to live in a civilized world?
Anyway, is there a way to create a thread visible only to the members of the group? Or does it require setting up categories manually?
-
Anyway, is there a way to create a thread visible only to the members of the group? Or does it require setting up categories manually?
Thread no, category (admin)yes.
-
Put me wherever @faoileag is. He seems like a nice dude to have in a group
Filed Under: perfectly fine reasoning | groups based on country seems like a terrible idea, though. Better make groups by pedanticlevels
-
Can we use group aliases for mentions? ISTR something about that before. @area_usa #area_usa
-
-
Can we use group aliases for mentions? ISTR something about that before. @area_usa #area_usa
The facility is there - it's the "Who can use this group as an alias?" option in the screenshot back in #16 . For example, for me:
Clicking the bottom item in that list generates:
And yes, it's entirely possible to have @everyone and @trust_level_0 (or maybe not) do that.
So I know that can be abused - we don't need to experiment with that bit of functionality... :D
-
And yes, it's entirely possible to have @everyone and @trust_level_0 (or maybe not) do that.
Uh, yeah, those seem extreme. But level 2 or 3 would make sense to me.
EDIT: Or at least members of the group.
Filed Under: trying to find a reason for custom groups
-
But level 2 or 3 would make sense to me.
Not really - 333 level_2 and 48 level_3 are too many to enable that functionality for everyone, especially since I've just been reminded there's an @mention limit per-post (despite what the screenshot below indicates, it's 10); for fun I enabled trust_level_0 and it did much as I expected:
-
-
I want @Discourseteam to point to everybody who works on Discourse
Obviously @staff should be a thing, tooAfter that, just play around with random groups. @dickweeds soulds really cool to mention everybody who has a pedantric dickweed-badge. That way you can bait them into your topic and trap them forever
-
I'm USA. I assume @PJH has to put us in a group, or it's one of our usual highly-Discourseverable features.
-
I'm open to reasonable/legitimate ideas.
Well, obviously the only reason is to have a private category (unless you're really inclined to browse the groups/whatever/posts feed).
The only thing I can think of is a "sane people" group.
Filed under: for varying definitions of sanity
-
Not really - 333 level_2 and 48 level_3 are too many to enable that functionality for everyone, especially since I've just been reminded there's an @mention limit per-post (despite what the screenshot below indicates, it's 10); for fun I enabled trust_level_0 and it did much as I expected:
Oh, wow...of course, I had no idea how that worked. So...it expands the mentions into the full group list? I was assuming more of a listserv-like implementation from the user's point of view. Group members, mods and admins seems like a reasonable thing, though it sounds like mention limits present another self-sabotage moment for discourse.
-
works on Discourse
Does that include pentesting?
Filed Under: Why can't Users open their own groups anyway? Then the whole "group can mention group"-thing makes a lot of sense, actually
I suggest "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob".
-
Seeing as everybody would use that group to mention the "smart people" who created this "forum" I think you don't want to be included in that group ;P
Filed Under: Unless you like that kind of attention.... I am not judging
-
The only thing I can think of is a "sane people" group.
What would an empty group accomplish?
-
Obviously @staff should be a thing, too
No ta. And for the same reason as Jeff.
And anyway, the vast majority of @staff either don't post/read regularly enough or aren't really what you'd consider staff.
What you're probably thinking of is a new group with me, @dhromed, probably @apapadimoulis, possibly @galgorah and maybe @sam in it.
But no. For reasons. :)
I'm USA. I assume @PJH has to put us in a group, or it's one of our usual highly-Discourseverable features.
The former. Unfortunately.
I was assuming more of a listserv-like implementation from the user's point of view.
That'd be a more sensible suggestion, however - and get ready for a headdesk moment - [spoiler]user names and group names are two separate namespaces, despite both being prefixed by an @ sign to make them look the same. So if you have a group @PJH containing all my aliases (hmm..) and a user @PJH, which would get notifications?[/spoiler]
-
So if you have a group @PJH containing all my aliases (hmm..) and a user @PJH, which would get notifications?
I CAN ONLY THINK OF ONE WAY TO FIND OUT
But I imagine if I were in charge of doing such a thing, I'd have group aliases use a different character or maybe a double, which gives a clue that something different is going on. @@area_usa
-
I CAN ONLY THINK OF ONE WAY TO FIND OUT
Implement it? Because as it is, you get to choose which gets uses as you type your post.
-
why does this mention not work as expected? Am I failing to discourse? is it discoverable? Am I a barrier to groups?
-
Implement it? Because as it is, you get to choose which gets uses as you type your post.
Right, but what goes into the post is still just the basic text, which has no way (that we know of) to discriminate between the two. Maybe it goes to both?
-
why does this mention not work as expected? Am I failing to discourse? is it discoverable? Am I a barrier to groups?
-
well SHIT.
That's kind of pointless. How am I going to solicit intimacy now?