TonyM wrote: > > > Now based on my key role in building a private social network from > hundreds up to 45,000 staff in a large organisation, which somehow means > little to others, I have not got traction myself. >
Tony, as Ste W. commented a primary issue is there are not so many of "us" here. Re the 45 K, I'd love to know more. But as a number itself its a hint more than a depiction of significance? > > *The null hypothosis* > How many people use the forum version of GG?, that is the ONLY way I use > it, How many people use the archive? How many use the filters? Are we > realing using GG well. > I don't have stats. I can see though that a lot use email version. Some aspects of Web version they will miss. Especially REVISED posts. > > *The problem* is in my view finding out how to find a path for the > community to evaluate and choose. > The plain text archive version I'm seriously looking at to see if you you can interrogate it better than Web version. > > When I built a Yammer forum (still available) ... it was not even given a > chance, even although I insisted it solved most if not all needs (after > reading everyone's comments). I believe I addressed a number of concerns in > the GG threads relating to it but we had no team evaluating it. > Right. An issue can exist and be debated yet translation to action is another matter. I been very vocal on downsides here in GG. My main thought has devolved to *"GG makes tracking history hard. Very hard." That stands out as the singular issue here.* BUT GG for direct discussion is excellent. Threading is relevant. BUT history is quickly lost. There is a fundamental tension between "now" & "then". Now is fine, then is quickly gone. > ... The key features in my mind about yammer I would like to see for this > community, is the ability to review all activity, but focus on special > interest groups ... > Its a good aim. The issue with that, I think, is (1) not enough people & (2), likely most important, it looks like it would fragment things. I also think worth noting the great recent collaboration developing the e-book version. That was NOT an open process. 3 developers linked up and just did it no one knew about till completed. Worked well. Overall I'd guess that what is needed is really a better ONE group here but with decent past history tracking?? I do appreciate your thinking a lot on the issue, so thanks. --- Now, regarding the OP, I'm still not sure its actually solvable under any circumstances. It was a limited pragmatic issue of how to isolate "innovations in TW edit mechanisms" for a few recent weeks. So far that specific remains both elusive and, I think, a pertinent use case of lack of access to what you need. Is it solvable? Not sure. Best wishes TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/804f1ec8-55dc-445c-a1fd-e788447c9c78%40googlegroups.com.
