Ciao TonyM
A few footnotes. Nothing too serious. (Everything else I read and
understood, I think)
Re the 45 K, I'd love to know more. But as a number itself its a hint more
> than a depiction of significance?
>
TonyM wrote:
> The point is I was key in the design, promotion and building of Yammer
> from 1,200 people to an extent everyone wanted to and used it across a
> large organisation, with all its special interest groups etc...
>
Ah! Thanks for making that clearer. It's significant!
> BUT GG for direct discussion is excellent. Threading is relevant.
>>
>
> Not really, I can't just like something , or follow an edition, a plugin
> or an author
>
Oh! I thought threading here was Good. Technically GG built off Listserv &
Usenet that, basically, established what "threading is". It seems good to
me.
BUT history is quickly lost.
>>
>
> With email threads yes.
>
Interesting. Pragmatically it seems lost with BOTH Email & Web versions IF
the user is limited to a crude search interface. Web version sucks after a
few weeks as much as dumb passive email.
Note, an ADVANTAGE of Email version is it sits on local computer in plain
text format so maybe its actually MORE open to (additional) easier
heuristic searching?
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 do not think the number of people importiant, for some years I and my
> partner had a private yammer group, at least not on Yammer, but some
> platforms should scale well.
>
The issue is "private"? What I mean is: initiatives by common interests
together. Sounds good if that is what you meant? But it's not an "in
public?".
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> This would happen much more in curated groups/projects. and would continue
> indefinitely with new people taking up ongoing maintenance in the future
>
Right. But I doubt the start of that is a public appeal. More likely where
folk with common interest simply, between them, do-it, THEN go public?
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.
>>
>
> ... we just need a small cohort to demonstrate and populate curated
> content on a system which remains interactive and cross posted with GG so
> no data is orphaned,
>
VERY interesting comment!
My issue here is that it looks like what people DO ALREADY!
In a way it devolves back to the OP. I was most interested in finding
things I KNOW are there and well presented, but buried, not findable --- *the
system creates the orphans, the orphaned don't like the system*, from poor
search, poor tagging etc.
OR maybe the OP is a *hopeless case *where the info requirement ("changes
in edit functions recently") just can't hit the tarmac well.
In which case, is it a specific GG issue or the Universe of Linguistic
Limitation?
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/274046bb-6280-40fb-9521-cc5de232fc96%40googlegroups.com.
