Ciao Saq, VERY interesting, thoughtful, post! I would UPVOTE it if Google Groups supported upvoting! :-)
>> start building towards something better with tools that help us, rather than continuing to struggle to work around the limitations of GG; which only seem to be getting worse. It is certainly true that changes Google made to Groups in the recent past simply *removed functions* without adding anything useful new. Using it is increasingly *inefficient*. TBH, I'm not fully sure what the best workable solution is to this REAL problem with GG. What IS clear is the case for CHANGE is getting much stronger. Best wishes TT On Sunday, 30 May 2021 at 11:17:43 UTC+2 [email protected] wrote: > @TT I've been in this group on and off since 2006. I've seen some if not > all of the discussions around GG shortcomings and alternatives. > > I've been one of the people previously worried about losing membership if > we transitioned away from GG. However especially with the recent GG > changes, at this point I think GG is stifling growth and not serving > existing members well either. It happens a couple of times a week on > average that I lose a long post I was writing to address a users questions > because the GG UI glitches out in longer posts. > > I think we aren't far off the point - if not already there - where the > negatives of staying on GG are outweighing the cost of moving to another > platform. > > You mentioned reddit, and it is worth keeping in mind that a lot of the > reddit users aren't comfortable using a Google product which is difficult > to use without a Google account. A solution with multiple sign in options > is a plus in this regard. Another requirements for some users on GG has > been being able to subscribe via email. Discourse has pretty robust > features in this regard as well which would help with a transition. > > Moving to Discourse isn't going to be a silver bullet. However it would > give us the opportunity to start building towards something better with > tools that help us, rather than continuing to struggle to work around the > limitations of GG; which only seem to be getting worse. > > Regards, > Saq > > On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 10:46:22 AM UTC+2 TiddlyTweeter wrote: > >> Ciao ludwa6 >> >> As I commented to Saq, it can't be just about "is Discourse better?" It >> IS. BUT it is not the central issue though. >> There needs to be DEEP THOUGHT about *HOW you could ever transition* >> from here to there without devastating the membership here? >> >> FWIW, one BIG UPSIDE with Discourse is that you can logon with GOOGLE >> credentials. >> Might seem like a small thing, but those small things matter in easing >> the case for any potential transfer ... >> >> Best wishes >> TT >> >> [image: Screenshot 2021-05-30 103742.jpg] >> >> On Sunday, 30 May 2021 at 10:13:39 UTC+2 ludwa6 wrote: >> >>> I share your pain, @TT... and am +1 @saq's idea about Discourse and how >>> to fund it. >>> >>> I for one would be happy to chip in a few $/month to support this >>> community, and- from earlier discussion thread @Tones initiated (can't seem >>> to find it now; see the problem? :-) -i gather that there be others >>> likewise inclined to fund the community somehow, if only we could find an >>> equitable way to do so. As discussed, who or what initiative gets funded, >>> and how that gets decided is not a trivial problem... >>> >>> So funding for an improved collaboration infrastructure seems not only >>> perfectly equitable, it also solves what must be (if TT & i are at all >>> representative) a problem we all share, and an opportunity for more >>> effective collaboration. >>> >>> /walt >>> >>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 7:50:46 AM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: >>> >>>> I would like to see us move to using Discourse >>>> <https://www.discourse.org/> for discussions. In particular the search >>>> feature is very well implemented. >>>> >>>> Professional hosting ranges $50-100 per month. Personally I think an >>>> Open Collective model for where the community chips in with recurring >>>> monthly contributions to support that would be a good way to approach it. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 8:34:37 AM UTC+2 TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>>> >>>>> This Google Group is OUR main end-user forum. >>>>> >>>>> There are problems with Google Groups. More recently it was >>>>> "dumbed-down" by Google. A lot of tools just disappeared. That just made >>>>> it >>>>> worse for OUR needs. >>>>> >>>>> And, long term, it has proved to also have NO DECENT MEMORY. >>>>> Search here is the Total Pits. >>>>> >>>>> WHAT happens as a result of that? >>>>> >>>>> A VERY common pattern that happens daily here is RE-CREATION OF THE >>>>> WHEEL. >>>>> GG lacks any easy, structured, way to interrogate the VAST >>>>> knowledge-base that this GG actually IS. >>>>> SO, again and again, you see very similar queries come up and be >>>>> patiently RE-answered. >>>>> >>>>> I think a much BETTER way would be to leverage off the knowledge >>>>> accumulated here and direct users first to already EXTANT solutions. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure it is possible. >>>>> But repetition of the variants on the same question is a waste, I >>>>> think? >>>>> >>>>> Just comments >>>>> 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/ac645a56-3708-4578-a25e-c48c2c0aa932n%40googlegroups.com.
