Split the Games group

Orson Carter said

Sensual Art said

Orson Carter said

Yep. And one can hide any thread that one doesn't wish to see. 

Sure, I can hide one particular group post, such as "Flash your latest pic".  And another post such as "Your most viewed picture today".  And hundreds of other similar posts.  That way, I can reduce the visible posts to just those which I want to see.  That's quite a lot of effort on my part.  I've done a lot of them already.

I was't referring to hiding individual posts. I referred to hiding any individual thread that one doesn't wish to see. Takes only a split second. 

I think you're using the word thread where I'm using the word post.  This entire suggestion post is a group post.  Your group reply is a reply within it , as is mine.

I can hide a group, I can hide a post.  I cannot hide a post reply other than by blocking the individual.

(I'm using PP's naming here).

If it aint broke don't fix it. 

KernowPhoto said

If it aint broke don't fix it. 

It's broken.

Sensual Art said

Orson Carter said

Sensual Art said

Orson Carter said

Yep. And one can hide any thread that one doesn't wish to see. 

Sure, I can hide one particular group post, such as "Flash your latest pic".  And another post such as "Your most viewed picture today".  And hundreds of other similar posts.  That way, I can reduce the visible posts to just those which I want to see.  That's quite a lot of effort on my part.  I've done a lot of them already.

I was't referring to hiding individual posts. I referred to hiding any individual thread that one doesn't wish to see. Takes only a split second. 

I think you're using the word thread where I'm using the word post.  This entire suggestion post is a group post.  Your group reply is a reply within it , as is mine.

I can hide a group, I can hide a post.  I cannot hide a post reply other than by blocking the individual.

(I'm using PP's naming here).

I was using the word thread because I was referring to a thread. 

We may be at crossed porpoises; but to my simple, decrepit old brain I thought that if one was annoyed by the way a particular thread was going - if, for example, a thread was being spoiled by repeat contributions - one could be easily resolve things by hiding the thread. 

Orson Carter said

Sensual Art said

(I'm using PP's naming here).

I was using the word thread because I was referring to a thread. 

We may be at crossed porpoises; but to my simple, decrepit old brain I thought that if one was annoyed by the way a particular thread was going - if, for example, a thread was being spoiled by repeat contributions - one could be easily resolve things by hiding the thread.

PP calls it a post, so I called it a post.  I'm trying to avoid talking at cross purposes, so clarified what I was talking about, and using PP's names for clarity.

Yes, you can hide a post.  It takes a couple of seconds.

That's a couple of seconds for me, for each post that I wish to hide.  As noted earlier, there are thousands of them.

And a couple of seconds for the next person, for each post that they don't want to see.

And for the next person.

Sensual Art said

We used to have a fair amount of participation in the "from the previous poster" games, but now they're pretty much drowned out there's very little.  It is my assertion that the suggested split would bring those participants back.

I can see what you're saying, but it contains an assumption that people want to post in the "previous poster" groups but don't because they're drowned by the other groups.  I'd suggest that if they want to post in those groups then they would just do so anyway.  As you've already said, the two sets of groups have different functions (self-advertising vs advertising others) and probably therefore different sets of people posting, so I'm not sure that altering one would have any effect on the other?

bad john said

I dropped out of the Games group long ago.  Partly because I inadvertently upset some people but also because some viewed it as begging for love.  I might be slightly more likely to rejoin your second proposed group.  However, it would probably be too slight to pass the threshold of actually rejoining.  

I would like to see Share a Shoot revitalised.  It seems to be a UDP group these days.  

UDP?

Sensual Art said

Orson Carter said

Sensual Art said

(I'm using PP's naming here).

I was using the word thread because I was referring to a thread. 

We may be at crossed porpoises; but to my simple, decrepit old brain I thought that if one was annoyed by the way a particular thread was going - if, for example, a thread was being spoiled by repeat contributions - one could be easily resolve things by hiding the thread.

PP calls it a post, so I called it a post.  I'm trying to avoid talking at cross purposes, so clarified what I was talking about, and using PP's names for clarity.

Yes, you can hide a post.  It takes a couple of seconds.

That's a couple of seconds for me, for each post that I wish to hide.  As noted earlier, there are thousands of them.

And a couple of seconds for the next person, for each post that they don't want to see.

And for the next person.

Just for the same of clarity, what do you call a post withing a post? 

Gothic Image said

Sensual Art said

We used to have a fair amount of participation in the "from the previous poster" games, but now they're pretty much drowned out there's very little.  It is my assertion that the suggested split would bring those participants back.

I can see what you're saying, but it contains an assumption that people want to post in the "previous poster" groups but don't because they're drowned by the other groups.  I'd suggest that if they want to post in those groups then they would just do so anyway.  As you've already said, the two sets of groups have different functions (self-advertising vs advertising others) and probably therefore different sets of people posting, so I'm not sure that altering one would have any effect on the other?

Whenever one of the "previous poster" games gets a single nudge, there's invariably a few more posts on it.  This lasts no more than half a day.

The conclusion is clear: people are reminded that the post exists because it appears in their Recent Posts gadget.  If it doesn't appear there, they forget about it.

Orson Carter said

Sensual Art said

Orson Carter said

Sensual Art said

(I'm using PP's naming here).

I was using the word thread because I was referring to a thread. 

We may be at crossed porpoises; but to my simple, decrepit old brain I thought that if one was annoyed by the way a particular thread was going - if, for example, a thread was being spoiled by repeat contributions - one could be easily resolve things by hiding the thread.

PP calls it a post, so I called it a post.  I'm trying to avoid talking at cross purposes, so clarified what I was talking about, and using PP's names for clarity.

Yes, you can hide a post.  It takes a couple of seconds.

That's a couple of seconds for me, for each post that I wish to hide.  As noted earlier, there are thousands of them.

And a couple of seconds for the next person, for each post that they don't want to see.

And for the next person.

Just for the same of clarity, what do you call a post withing a post? 

A group reply.

There's a subtle hint as to PP's naming here, in the link https://purpleport.com/group/bugs-errors-suggestions/197341/split-the-games-group/page/2/#gr3935353

Also in the notification customiser, where you can be notified if you're mentioned in a group post or reply.

Sensual Art said

Whenever one of the "previous poster" games gets a single nudge, there's invariably a few more posts on it.  This lasts no more than half a day.

The conclusion is clear: people are reminded that the post exists because it appears in their Recent Posts gadget.  If it doesn't appear there, they forget about it.

That applies equally well to the other games - every time I resurrect a group that hasn't been used for a while, someone else jumps on it immediately afterwards!  :-)

Sensual Art

This stuff is way above my sphere of knowledge, and I'm looking at this from an end user point of view only.

PP system seems to be able to recognise 'Games' threads - else I wouldn't be able to / hide then.

If the system can recognise and hide, why can't it display in a gadget?

A gadget already exists for recent posts that hides 'Games' posts, so why can't this gadget be modified to only display 'Games' threads.

If the system can already 'hide in one gadget, surely it can 'show' in a different one?

Gothic Image said

bad john said

I dropped out of the Games group long ago.  Partly because I inadvertently upset some people but also because some viewed it as begging for love.  I might be slightly more likely to rejoin your second proposed group.  However, it would probably be too slight to pass the threshold of actually rejoining.  

I would like to see Share a Shoot revitalised.  It seems to be a UDP group these days.  

UDP?

A very techy joke.  I was wondering how long it would be before someone asked.  Data packets on the internet can be TCP or UDP.  TCP packets are sequenced and tracked, the receiver can tell if a packet has been lost and request it again.  It is used when integrity is important.  If you are downloading software then it is important that not a single bit is lost or corrupted.  UDP packets are send and forget.  Some might get lost and no one cares.  UDP allows a much faster transfer but with no guarantee of accuracy.  It is typically used for streaming.  You have probably noticed the occasional glitch when streaming a movie.  Provided that they are not too frequent, it is a price worth paying for the speed.  If a software download had even the tiniest glitch then you would not want to run it.  

A bit like registered mail (TCP) and junk mail (UDP).  

So, it was my jokey way of saying that the Share a Shoot group is send and forget.  People post into it and no one pays any attention.  An exaggeration of course but a lot of posts seem to get no response.  

Yes please.

My view is that threads in the first category are not games. So they shouldn't be where they are.

Someone once suggested a "Blow your own trumpet" group to accommodate them. Nod of approval from me.

bad john said

Gothic Image said

bad john said

I dropped out of the Games group long ago.  Partly because I inadvertently upset some people but also because some viewed it as begging for love.  I might be slightly more likely to rejoin your second proposed group.  However, it would probably be too slight to pass the threshold of actually rejoining.  

I would like to see Share a Shoot revitalised.  It seems to be a UDP group these days.  

UDP?

A very techy joke.  I was wondering how long it would be before someone asked.  Data packets on the internet can be TCP or UDP.  TCP packets are sequenced and tracked, the receiver can tell if a packet has been lost and request it again.  It is used when integrity is important.  If you are downloading software then it is important that not a single bit is lost or corrupted.  UDP packets are send and forget.  Some might get lost and no one cares.  UDP allows a much faster transfer but with no guarantee of accuracy.  It is typically used for streaming.  You have probably noticed the occasional glitch when streaming a movie.  Provided that they are not too frequent, it is a price worth paying for the speed.  If a software download had even the tiniest glitch then you would not want to run it.  

A bit like registered mail (TCP) and junk mail (UDP).  

So, it was my jokey way of saying that the Share a Shoot group is send and forget.  People post into it and no one pays any attention.  An exaggeration of course but a lot of posts seem to get no response.  

I understand UDP but didn't see the relevance ...  :-)

My issue with SaS (nothing to do with computer interfaces!) is that too many people treat it like a glorified "post your most recent image" without bothering to say anything about the shoot.

Anyway, we digress!