Dwight, to add to my earlier comment - Here's a screencap of MLO showing conflicts resolution.
<https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9HQzq8j_BNs/VrKYK7vCglI/AAAAAAAACLk/NHp4jloNqKw/s1600/Conflict%2BResolution%2Bdialog.jpg> Look at the "conflicts" and tell me what any "normal" person will make of this. What "conflict" actually exists? Is any non-MLO programmer supposed to even have a concept of what a GUID or the Position at parent is? And even if they are technically adept (as I am) and understand to a degree WHAT these things are, how shall I interpret this data? Do I know for what earthly reason MLO changed the Parent GUID or Position and based on this "display" of the "conflict" how do I interpret which direction is "better" to resolve this? My best guess here is: I have no f*****g clue why the GUID changed, it MIGHT be related to moving the task in the tree but that's not obvious and even if that IS the reason here I don't see why MLO can't resolve this on it's own. Assuming for a moment however that MLO *CAN'T* resolve this on it's own, what on god's green earth am I supposed to do with the information *as it's presented* to fix it? If, *IF, *MLO truly can't figure out on it's own what to do here, could not the *humans* behind MLO's programming come up with a better way for other *humans* to understand and interpret what's being asked of them here? It's a rhetorical question - the answer is yes - IF they'd invested the care or time. This dialog was acceptable during development and for *programmers* to understand. This is just lazy and pointless to foist on end users. I'm technically adept guy. If I can't make heads or tails of this, how do you think it strikes the "90%" who are not? To me it's obvious that they just never went back and polished this turd (or worse - they have no concept of how utterly useless it is.) So when you ask what I would call 21st Century sync or collab I want to be clear that there's a ton of things that need addressing, particularly beyond/outside of the flawed and lossy sync algorithms I spoke about earlier, and I could probably write novellas on it if i were so inclined but given the lack of participation and openness the devs display here and lack of any *real* inclusion of the users in the dev process I see no reason to invest that kind of time and effort only to watch it fall on deaf or non-caring ears (or worse, not even reach the ears at all.) Before we get 21st century sync or MLO we'll need 21st century development. Despite a number of [shallow imo] efforts to portray themselves as such I still think [actually I KNOW it in my bones] they just don't get it. As a simple example, Andrey showed us that he's aware of Trello in a blog post. I certainly hope then that he's aware of Trello's development. To date though I see that he's taken no cues from it in terms of letting his users in on even a simple dev roadmap. We know as much about and have had as much input into MLO-D v5 as we did into MLO-a v2 right up to the time an actual installable binary appeared. And by that I mean we have a couple of "pretty" screenshots and heck of a lot of silence. If MLO corp wants users like me (or anyone for that matter) to contribute and collaborate with them then I expect them to treat the users as contributors and collaborators. At the VERY LEAST that means starting and maintaining an open, truthful and timely dialog and demonstrating a willingness to take user input, direction and needs/requests seriously. None of which has even remotely been demonstrated beyond some hollow *words*. So until such time that they make any real efforts we are just unwittingly drafted "bug finders" (often by accident) paying and working for post-reactionary development that lives in a vacuum. hth, J. On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-5, Dwight Arthur wrote: > > Joel: I'm interested in your views regarding 21st century collaboration. > If you and your assistant make different chsnges at the same record/task, > what would happen? > -Dwight > MLO Betazoid on Android SGN4 > > On Dec 24, 2015, Joel Azaria <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don't specifically agree with the web version idea but a better sharing >> and collab function I can definitely get behind. >> As it stands there is a most rudimentary sharing that can use a shared >> folder on the local network (LAN) or an FTP server and you can share the >> whole file or just selective branches. If you want to share the whole file >> I think cloud sync works as well but cloud sync won't support selective >> branch sharing. And syncing is a manual process (remember to press F9 or >> changes won't propagate to the shared file). It works decently* but has a >> very 1990's feel to it. >> Conflict resolution (ie. if two people change the same record >> before/between syncs) is very much a manual process and better make sure >> people on both ends of the sync KNOW HOW to navigate it or expect someone >> will get into trouble. >> >> And for my 2c it's exactly that 1990's manual sync/conflict resolution >> logic that has to enter the 21st century before any of this can happen. So >> long as all of this is manual (and the Cloud Sync service has done little >> if anything to improve this) any attempt at improving collaboration is just >> putting lipstick on a pig. >> >> My 2c. Possibly worth exactly what you paid for them... >> >> >> >> >> *it worked for me for a while but just the other day I lost an entire >> branch (my entire Inbox and Speedox) that I was sharing with my assistant. >> We cannot tell for sure if the problem was caused by the sync or by manual >> error. Make sure to crank up MLO's backup settings to the max (30 >> versions, use dailies, weeklies, monthlies and if I think of any other ways >> to capture add'l/further backups I'll be all over that too.) Just a full >> disclosure fyi. >> >> On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 4:32:02 AM UTC-5, Transisto wrote: >>> >>> I've been looking at MLO for many years but never got to using it >>> because there is no and I fear there will never be any sharing and >>> collaborating feature. >>> >>> Maybe having a webapp view where the employee can just mark as completed >>> or add comments to a list of task to do. >>> >>> I'm currently using workflowy for that. I think MLO is missing out on >>> the network effect by not allowing a functional but limited free version >>> that is web based. >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "MyLifeOrganized" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/213e1dd9-fc00-4e28-bf8d-109cb458bfed%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/213e1dd9-fc00-4e28-bf8d-109cb458bfed%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/686c0106-e295-4d43-b8b5-78d40988dce7%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
