The google groups doesn't seem any worse than the other alternatives, and probably not as prone to hi-jacking as the self-served packages. The main problem is that TWC and TW5 conversations are mixed. Also, and I hope someone could prove me wrong, there's no way to filter your search results by users (except yourself). My approach is to do a search and sort by date so that the newest stuff comes up on top.
Part of the reason that the wheel gets re-invented so many times, is that someone keeps changing the lug bolts on the wheel. Twederation seems to be a long way off, though it seems the core technology -- pulling from other TW's, is working. If you try it, you'll see the problems. You don't have to have a hosted account to pull from other members. There are additional complications that pages hosted on http sites can't pull from https sites (or is it the other way around?). Twederation (TWED), as I understand it, is a collection of TW pages, each of which is hosted by it's own master somewhere out there on the web. Each individual will "pull" content from other members of the Twederation, including content that that member has pulled from other members. So the system, in theory, is highly distributed. The only special member will be the main host, who is responsible for maintaining the master list of TWED members. If you are not on that list, then you can still pull from other members, but they are unlikely to pull from your content since they won't know where you are. It's a little unclear to me why any member of the TWED couldn't create a new card for a new member and thus start their TWED participation. Actually, the central host is something of a weakness, if you wanted a system that was hard to suppress and that could keep on working in the absence of a given "disappeared" individual. Mark On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 4:25:15 PM UTC-7, Duarte Farrajota Ramos wrote: > > Just to make it clear it's not that I'm particularly fond of Google > groups, it's just "good enough". As a tool it works fairly well but it's > not extraordinarily remarkable or efficient. > It feels kind of buggy at times and stagnated, I think google hasn't > updated it in ages and it feels abandoned. I just think the benefits of > moving haven't outweighed the trouble of migrating *yet.* > > As for TWederation I have only been to the forums very superficially > lately; I've heard the term thrown around several times but didn't quite > grasp the whole concept behind it. > From what I gathered it's about "federation" right? As in show external > content from other sources (possibly other TiddlyWikis?) under the same > host wiki, am I right? > > Kind of like the plugins library architecture currently works, if I am not > mistaken? Is that it or am I far off? > Anyone care to explain in few words what it is? Genuinely curious. > > > On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:13:23 UTC+1, Josiah wrote: >> >> Ciao Mat >> >> I seen activity on TWFederation. I have NO idea what it is exactly. I do >> notice its a sweet-point with promise. >> >> HOW will it benefit a normal user? >> >> Best wishes >> Josiah >> >> >> On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:10:56 UTC+2, Mat wrote: >>> >>> The only realistic option I can imagine is TWederation. By "only >>> realistic" I mean that even if there are other solutions, there is not >>> enough incentive to switch to those whereas TWederation is of interest for >>> many other TW-matters and communication-within-TW matters. I think >>> TWederation will partly replace the google groups but it will likely be a >>> bit too "odd" for beginners to dive into immediately and so this google >>> group will likely remain. Hopefully we'll get the UI good enough so that >>> it'll be more and more useful. >>> >>> Do help along with TWederation if you care about the matter :-) >>> >>> <:-) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 1:37:32 PM UTC+2, Josiah wrote: >>>> >>>> Ciao all >>>> >>>> After much sweat and endless toying I figured out how to look back over >>>> posts here in a way i could finally find relevant stuff. Sometimes they >>>> are >>>> gold. Often mush unless you have the time to wade through entire threads. >>>> >>>> What DOES stand out is that with ... >>>> >>>> 1. decent tagging of OPTIMAL answers >>>> 2. more cross-linking to relevant resources >>>> 3. a bit more thought by (informed) contributors that discussions >>>> could really helpfully add to documentation, possibly create it ... >>>> >>>> ... in short, it could solve a lot of the "documentation gap". As is I >>>> see perpetual re-creation of the wheel. >>>> >>>> >>>> The IRONY is this group has to be one of the most user-friendly on the >>>> planet that's losing its history daily. >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not NOT convinced that the way Google Groups work is optimal for >>>> what is needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> Josiah >>>> >>> -- 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 post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/319c3e06-2775-4f52-924f-8e31bc6ed49e%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
