The Google Groups Problem -- Revisited

[@TiddlyTweeter]

I have come to the view that Google Groups are Actively Damaging TW uptake.

A major problem is that numbers increase so slowly they barely match natural leave rates.

There is something seriously wrong.

It is NOT growing and it should be given the immense innovation that has happened and how goodly flexible TW is now. It should be up there in the 100,000s.

This GG is one of the most unfriendly user environments. Its total lack of tagging  leaves the newbie with only ONE option: hazard a question. You need stomach to get there. A new user should not need to ever feel like that.

The fact that most every query gets well answered does not detract from the fact that GG looked at before using is seriously confusing & intimidating.

In addition lot of the time you can't find stuff you know is there even if you been here a long time already. It is a PITA to use.

My QUESTION is this: is it in TW's interest overall to continue with a forum that (1) alienates new users and (2) creates hassle for regular users? (3) Would the hassle of change be broadly welcomed?

Best wishes
Josiah

[@TiddlyTweeter]

One thing I forgot to mention was that GGs DO support two methods of post classification. Tagging & Categories. But both require someone to administrate them. However that could be part of an incremental change? However that would be problematic for the large number of TW GG users on email.

[Mark Kerrigan]

I'm sure many others have a lot more eloquent thoughts about Google groups, but as someone who doesn't visit a lot, I think there are a number of problems with relying on Google groups, mostly it's dependent on Google continuing to support Google groups (Google could one day decide to pull the plug on it) and the problem of discoverability. I'm not interested in reading every single post and although I tend to check in every once in awhile, I find it in general the format of Google groups hard to follow. I also think there is a lot of combined content with both TWC and TW5 that creates a challenge with searching for other people's solutions to various problems.

I think Google groups is better for smaller groups. I also agree the size of the community is going to be limited by how many people are going to have the time to put up with trying to navigate Google groups.

[h0p3]

Agreed. I've been a daily user of TW for 2 years, and I've avoided this forum until I couldn't. I really don't like using google groups for a bunch of reasons.

I'm not sure how to replace this forum nicely. Where is the best place or tool to go from here? Is there a systematic way to graft/categorize this content into a different system?

Cliche as it may sound, I think the Arch Linux wiki is a strong example of what good community-driven technical documentation should look like. I've used that thing on almost every distribution I've used. I want one that good for Tiddlywiki, but I have no idea how to do it (I'm sadly not convinced TW is even the right tool for it just yet either...but I could easily be wrong). Lowering the friction to translating the work in forums into technical documentation in a long-term wiki seems like a great idea. I'm straight up a TW fanboi at this point, so you'll need to correct my lack of objectivity.

This is a good community. I'm not sure how to enable it to grow into the monster it deserves to be. I second the claim "There is something seriously wrong." But, I think that about a lot of software. I'm also not the best judge of why other people don't use it or don't wish to engage in it. I'm not sure how to change it.

[Mohammad]

What alternative do you propose?

A lot of very good stuff is buried in this forum and unfortunately it is difficult to find, categorize and use!

-Mohammad

[Jeremy Ruston]

This is a frequent topic of discussion and I hope we can improve things.

It’s worth pointing out that, though, that fixing this isn’t just a matter of spinning up a Heroku instance with a copy of Discourse. We need community infrastructure that is reliable, available, regularly backed up, properly maintained, handles our 13 year archive and has the means to deal with spam and abuse. None of that is impossible, but it’s way more work than just picking a piece of software and installing it somewhere….

Best wishes

Jeremy.

--
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 tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
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/b20a01da-b55e-4c04-b748-172c40cd4ab1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TonyM]

I believe I have the answer, 

Based on a lot of experience including building a 2-4K membership to 45K membership network.

It is a micro-blogging platform, a social media tool, a forum and includes documents (multiple people can edit at once) and links, with groups like micro-sites.

Yet this is quite a complex issue for many needs, and no tool may be perfect but if you do not try my suggestion how do you know? 

Yammer also has come conceptual differences so please maintain an open mind until you understand what it is, I will know people are "giving it a go" if they ask Questions, I will monitor it and help anyone.

Let me point out I have invited you all to test out Yammer at https://www.yammer.com/tiddlywiki/ just visit this site and request an invitation with your preferred email address. It may take up to 18 hours to process unless you are in my Australian time zone, for me to respond (as in the Case with Google Groups)

We now have 19 members, but little or no activity. Since no one is trying it, how can we even discuss the pros and cons.

From the outset, I think this will be great for the community including the ability to embed discussion groups, in your read only WIkis online. A great feedback method but since conversations take place in the network all other community members can help each other. I have anticipated many of the issues that may be raised and have answers. 

However I am offering this for free and hoping we get some organic growth because helping you all, will be a high enough commitment, I am not going to argue with people who have criticisms without actually trying to learn about it first. 

Regards

Tony

[Jed Carty]

Well, my biggest problem with Yammer is that I can't see anything without creating an account and to make an account I have to request access, so I guess when I get access I can say more about it, but not being publicly accessible is a huge problem for me. If I am contributing to a public project I would prefer that it is publicly accessible.

One alternative to finding a new forum is to make a publicly accessible wiki where editors post the answers to questions here. I don't think that searching through a forum is a particularly effective method of archiving documentation help. I think that the forum in addition to a curated wiki would be a better solution. We could set up a server with the online version of Bob and have a group of editors who are responsible for updating it. There have been a number of good attempts at one person doing this but it should be a group effort so that no one person being unavailable prevents it from working. This would require a server that can run node, a url for it to be accessible on and some people to be editors for it.

[TonyM]

Jed

I belive I can make it not require the invite step. I was just setting it up to evaluate.

Regards
Tony

[Sylvain Naudin]

Le mercredi 22 août 2018 10:17:02 UTC+2, Jeremy Ruston a écrit :

This is a frequent topic of discussion and I hope we can improve things.

It’s worth pointing out that, though, that fixing this isn’t just a matter of spinning up a Heroku instance with a copy of Discourse. We need community infrastructure that is reliable, available, regularly backed up, properly maintained, handles our 13 year archive and has the means to deal with spam and abuse. None of that is impossible, but it’s way more work than just picking a piece of software and installing it somewhere….

Best wishes

Jeremy.

Hi Jeremy,

I run the Discourse French Community Forum since 2015, so yes we can :)

I've transfert it in new instance twice and thanks to the backup fonction of Discourse, it's really easy. You have just to install a new one and import the last automatic backup.

Yes, there is regular new version, and it take little time to check server and ssh it.

Also it's OK with french audience since there is few traffic. If we do worldwide, we need a paid account I think for email notification (even more if we configure Discourse to reply post directly from mail like GG).

About spam and abuse, I'm really surprising about Discourse ! It's really impressive.

Cheers,

Sylvain

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Sylvain

I run the Discourse French Community Forum since 2015, so yes we can :)

Indeed, it’s a very useful experiment and I’ve been watching with interest.

I've transfert it in new instance twice and thanks to the backup fonction of Discourse, it's really easy. You have just to install a new one and import the last automatic backup.

It’s not so much that there be a technical mechanism for backups to be taken, we need a failsafe operating procedure whereby backups are taken and verified without relying entirely on the project team.

Yes, there is regular new version, and it take little time to check server and ssh it.

Also it's OK with french audience since there is few traffic. If we do worldwide, we need a paid account I think for email notification (even more if we configure Discourse to reply post directly from mail like GG).

About spam and abuse, I'm really surprising about Discourse ! It's really impressive.

Discourse does seem to be the most widely used of the available off-the-shelf, open source replacements for Google Groups. 

I’d certainly want the ability to work via email as we can with Google Groups. (One of the reasons that I like this feature is that it means that I have a complete, independent backup of all posts since 2005 that is easily searchable).

Best wishes

Jeremy.

Cheers,

Sylvain

--
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 tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
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/ab472aae-1e91-4940-bb6a-f8ccdab2f56b%40googlegroups.com.

[Jeremy Ruston]

Just to add another point about opportunity cost — if we were going to go to the trouble of setting up and operating a custom service for the TiddlyWiki community, then my first priority would not in fact be discussions, it would be to set up a proper plugin library that allowed easy third party submissions without requiring knowledge of GitHub.

“Plugin library” wouldn’t be a great description — it would be a repository of user uploaded plugins, snippets, tagged links, hints, etc. Ideally people would be able to use an API to post to the library directly from their own wikis. 

( I am not suggesting that we shouldn’t replace Google Groups with something else, just that if it’s going to be DIY then I think there might be higher priorities for our limited reserve of DIY skills).

There have been discussions today about whether the logo is holding TiddlyWiki back,  and now whether Google Groups is holding TiddlyWiki back. I can understand why both these topics are being discussed because they address daily irritations for many people. But, stepping back, I question whether these are the most important threats or opportunities facing us.

Best wishes

Jeremy

[h0p3]

That's a fine counter. If this is a matter of opportunity cost, I think replacing the discussion infrastructure is a lower priority (even though it's obviously an impediment).

Going back to my Arch example, the package management infrastructure is what makes it work in the first place. Finding effective ways to semi-centralize the body of packages that allow people to customize vanilla TWs is a more direct contribution to TW in both the short and longterm. Right now, I have to spider around this forum and googlefu through a lot of noise to find anything I want to install in TW.

What is necessary for this repository infrastructure?

[Mat]

Jeremy Ruston wrote:

It’s worth pointing out that, though, that fixing this isn’t just a matter of spinning up a Heroku instance with a copy of Discourse. We need community infrastructure that is reliable, available, regularly backed up, properly maintained, handles our 13 year archive and has the means to deal with spam and abuse. None of that is impossible, but it’s way more work than just picking a piece of software and installing it somewhere….

IMO we don't need that full set up right away but rather a system that has the potential to fulfill all those points.

<:-)

[Jed Carty]

If we are willing to have the plugin server require more than a static file server than the twederation extensions I am working on for Bob should work.

I already have wikis being served by Bob on a public facing server and it is working without trouble. I am currently working on a way for a wiki to send a POST to that server and get a list of available plugins and then request a plugin from that list from the server. There are going to be some more pieces than that to allow access control but that is the general idea.

Going the other way a person could get an account on the server and then submit content to it using the same thing.

The server would need to run on node but I don't think there is any reason that the wikis that connect to it would need to be anything special. A single file wiki running locally should have no trouble connecting.

My hope is that we can set up a server that can act as the public repository for plugins and code snippets. The biggest problem I have right now is the social aspects of it. The server is going to require administration and moderation and it really should be run by someone who is more consistent than I am. From my experiments with Bob something like a digital ocean droplet is more than powerful enough to work as the server.

[Mat]

While I agree that GG is insufficient here's a note to everyone thinking "I'm going to set up a super solution!"

DON'T WASTE YOUR AND OUR TIME

I say this out of respect for your time (and everyone elses).

Why? OK, let me refine my statement:

You might have a really great solution, but before you invite people to it, ensure that your solution is endorsed by AT LEAST Jeremy. For obvious reasons, he is the foremost expert and decision maker on TW so wherever he posts and hangs out, that is where the developers will hang out. There have alread been several attempts made that, AFAICT, didn't gain any traction. Further, for people to go to, or sign up for, a forum they must find it. I.e it must be "marketed" continuously and while TW is 100% open source, the tiddlywiki.com domain is not and that is currently the only relevant place where a forum can be "advertised" unless you want to consistently talk about it (...here, ironically).

IMO, any attempt that disregards these aspects is merely making things worse by splitting up community attention and dispersing where to find discussions.

So, please; don't waste your and our time.

Just my well-meaning opinion based on 10+ years of experience with this community.

<:-)

[Mark S.]

All we need is a "sanctioned" wiki (not TW)  that provides pointers and meta information re discussions in the Guugle group. Then the group can continue, with the difference being that multiple participants can help organize secondary discussions, referrals and refinements related to GG discussions. All the rest of the infrastructure can continue as it is.

-- Mark

[Mark S.]

Ah ... so you've noticed the pattern?

-- Mark

[Jed Carty]

Mark,

Is there a reason that Bob wouldn't work for this?

[Mark S.]

Have you gotten to the point that you are willing to let multiple participants connect and make updates to your web-Bob ? It would be interesting to see how it works under stress. I'm curious how it deals with concurrency.

I know when posting on GG my post often occurs within a minute or two of someone else's. So concurrency happens. Or doesn't.

The other issue is security -- mostly about takeovers and spam. I suppose it doesn't have to be as hardened as portals to private info would.

Let me know if you need moderation help.

-- Mark

[Mat]

Mark S. wrote:

All we need is a "sanctioned" wiki (not TW)  that provides pointers and meta information re discussions in the Guugle group.

Why specifically not a TW? (or what do you mean with sanctioned?)

I do hope that we eventually have a TW based system for this because it would (1) be awesome that anyone could customize it himself and (2) be awesome per se.

....

Possibly relevant for this discussion is Beaker Browser. I note they now also have a windows installer. As you know, Beaker Browser is an experimental browser that enables anyone to publish stuff straight onto the internet directly from their computer - no server needed. One compromise is that it doesn't use the http protocol but instead a special other protocol which is why you need the special browser. BTW, they've put up some videos on their site. This one gets interesting at 21:20. 

<:-)

[Mark S.]

Don't let the awesome become the enemy of the real.

TW wasn't meant to be a robust, multi-user wiki. There are plenty of Wiki's out there whose developers have years of experience with the concerns and perils of creating web-ready wiki applications. Chasing after TW-based solutions is a rabbit hole that we don't have to go down just because the idea is neat. We already know that TW has problems scaling, so if the idea is to provide a massive index to TW solutions, wouldn't it be better to use a tool made for the job?

It doesn't take away from the utility of TW just because it's not the best choice for some other job.

Consider that all the code for TW is kept on GitHub. Hey! Wouldn't it be neat to store it all inside a TW file! Just add version control, multi-user configuration, and you're done! Who needs GH!

By sanctioned, it's like you said -- Jeremy has to approve it and provide direction to it prominently at TiddlyWiki.com.

-- Mark

[Mat]

Mark S. wrote:

TW wasn't meant to be a robust, multi-user wiki [...] Chasing after TW-based solutions is a rabbit hole that we don't have to go down just because the idea is neat. We already know that TW has problems scaling, so if the idea is to provide a massive index to TW solutions, wouldn't it be better to use a tool made for the job?

Well, I was referring to what the end user interfaces with. The underlying backend can be whatever-it-takes. We saw one system in TiddlySpace but it could be any backend DB + distribution system but with an interfacing TW layer for the end user. TW is just a web page. Particularly if we're talking about distributing loose, i.e individual, tiddlers. Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something?

Consider that all the code for TW is kept on GitHub. Hey! Wouldn't it be neat to store it all inside a TW file! Just add version control, multi-user configuration, and you're done! Who needs GH!

Irony? But since you use this example; My point is that GH could be the underlying db, even hosting discussion posts, including an interfacing TW for the end user. No small coding project ;-)

 

By sanctioned, it's like you said -- Jeremy has to approve it and provide direction to it prominently at TiddlyWiki.com.

Ah, yes.

<:-)

[Mat]

Want. Eat. Dog Food.

<:-)

[Jed Carty]

Mark S,

I currently have 3 people who use the version of Bob I have hosted for Ooktech. The concern there isn't that it isn't ready to have people use it, it is that it wouldn't be a good idea to have just me in change of that and to host a community project on ooktech's test server.

If people want guest login's and a wiki that everyone can play around on I can probably set that up, I have to make sure it is ok with the people I work with first though. The biggest reservations brought up in the past is that we don't like the idea of hosting content for other people because that easily leads to uncomfortable situations.

Of course I have considered security, I wouldn't use it otherwise. Spam shouldn't be a big issue because you have to be logged in to modify anything (or view private wikis). It uses the same security for authorisation and access that should be standard on any secure part of the internet.

[Diego Mesa]

Noteself uses Discourse forum software, and its the most successful non-official TW place I've come across. 

https://forum.noteself.org/

https://www.discourse.org/

[PMario]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 8:16:08 PM UTC+2, Mark S. wrote:

TW wasn't meant to be a robust, multi-user wiki. There are plenty of Wiki's out there whose developers have years of experience with the concerns and perils of creating web-ready wiki applications. Chasing after TW-based solutions is a rabbit hole that we don't have to go down just because the idea is neat.

We already know that TW has problems scaling, so if the idea is to provide a massive index to TW solutions, wouldn't it be better to use a tool made for the job?

IMO that's wrong. We used to have TiddlySpace which scaled perfectly well. ... The problem is, that it has been shut down.

The TW concept scales, if bags and recipes would be a thing.. We have no solution at the moment, that implements the TW "bags" and "recipes" mechanism. With these elements we would be good to go. ...

 

It doesn't take away from the utility of TW just because it's not the best choice for some other job.

Consider that all the code for TW is kept on GitHub.

 

Hey! Wouldn't it be neat to store it all inside a TW file!
Just add version control, multi-user configuration, and you're done!

You are right.

 

Who needs GH!

Developers.

As Mat mentioned, the DAT-project may be a "non-dev" possibility here. ... I'm exploring it since quite some time, but don't have something to show that works with the latest version.

I do have a video that shows how TW worked with an alpha API, which doesn't exist anymore. Beaker Version 0.8.0 should have the same possibilities again. But some work will be needed to adjust the experimental code to the new API. 

Just my thoughts. 

have fun!

mario

[Mark S.]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 11:44:55 AM UTC-7, Mat wrote:

Well, I was referring to what the end user interfaces with. The underlying backend can be whatever-it-takes. We saw one system in TiddlySpace but it could be any backend DB + distribution system but with an interfacing TW layer for the end user. TW is just a web page. Particularly if we're talking about distributing loose, i.e individual, tiddlers. Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding something?

So, you're suggesting a non-existent database interface system? I haven't seen any use of TW as a front-end. My understanding is that in all cases, even with lazy-loading, all the tiddlers have to come over when you load a page. Imagine loading the title of every wikipedia entry when you're looking up "anteater". If there's some other technology that works with TW, then it hasn't been advertised much.

Oh well. It's all pretty academic.

-- Mark

[Jed Carty]

I believe that note self uses couchdb as the database back-end and I believe changes the tiddlers in the wiki dynamically. Bob can dynamically load or unload tiddlers or even wikis after they are loaded. So it is very possible and there are at least two cases where something other than loading everything at the page load happens. I hope, given the amount of time put into both note self, Bob and the related plugins that it isn't just an academic exercise.

[Mat]

So there is already

• Bob and singleexec
  
• NoteSelf
• TiddlyWeb (which the now shut down TiddlySpace used)

..that all could probably function as parts(!) in either discussion systems or other collaborative knowledge bases, because they are scaleable and can all serve single tiddlers (I think).

In my "don't waste your time" post above I didn't bring up the (single) route that I think can bypass the mentioned difficulties in setting up a new forum simply because I'm afraid I'd annoy people by constantly returning to it... but, since we're touching it now; TWederation would save us all ;-)

What I mean is that if the discussion system was well integrated in the TW that one uses anyway, then the user base could grow very organically becaue it would be so very accessible. In federated wikis you author your posts in your own TW - be they discussion posts or whatever - and just leave them there for subscribers to fetch! This setup would not need promotion in the same sense as "external" solutions because once you install it (e.g a plugin) it is there. No need to go places every time. (Who knows, it might even make it into standard distro comparable to the TiddlySpot saver. This would propel TW into a completely new game!)

Now, consider that the main brain behind the first rendition of TWederation is none other than the Jedi master currently master minding Boba Fett...

<:-)

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Jeremy Ruston wrote:

... if we were going to go to the trouble of setting up and operating a custom service for the TiddlyWiki community, then my first priority would not in fact be discussions, it would be to set up a proper plugin library that allowed easy third party submissions without requiring knowledge of GitHub.

I do think that "Gifford's List" has really proved the point that *centralised* effort is needed to harvest and administer the several hundred TW resources he's listed already. His TiddlyToolmap effort has brought together things I was only vaguely aware of and others I had no idea existed. It shows that its important to have a central listing.

I would like he was NOT the only person lumbered with the job.

Josiah

[barro...@gmail.com]

Tony,

 

Let me point out I have invited you all to test out Yammer at https://www.yammer.com/tiddlywiki/ just visit this site and request an invitation with your preferred email address. It may take up to 18 hours to process unless you are in my Australian time zone, for me to respond (as in the Case with Google Groups)

We now have 19 members, but little or no activity. Since no one is trying it, how can we even discuss the pros and cons.

 My apologies Tony, I had noticed your thread on what you started on Yammer, just haven'thad the time-- tryin to finish projects before my surgery.  If all goes well, I could stop acting like a doomed soul and get to other things.  I'm about to post what I hope will be a litle but of a contribution back to the community.

[Mark S.]

On Saturday, August 25, 2018 at 12:08:36 PM UTC-7, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

I would like he was NOT the only person lumbered with the job.

Dynalist does allow a user to appoint collaborators.

-- Mark

[Zachary Storer]

I think that this is an important post. Also note that as of Oct 9th, 2018 Google is discontinuing Google Plus.

This could also happen with Google Groups as well; you never know. So there are a variety of reasons I think

to switch to another platform.

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 12:05:36 PM UTC-6, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:

I have come to the view that Google Groups are Actively Damaging TW uptake.

A major problem is that numbers increase so slowly they barely match natural leave rates.

There is something seriously wrong.

It is NOT growing and it should be given the immense innovation that has happened and how goodly flexible TW is now. It should be up there in the 100,000s.

This GG is one of the most unfriendly user environments. Its total lack of tagging  leaves the newbie with only ONE option: hazard a question. You need stomach to get there. A new user should not need to ever feel like that.

The fact that most every query gets well answered does not detract from the fact that GG looked at before using is seriously confusing & intimidating.

In addition lot of the time you can't find stuff you know is there even if you been here a long time already. It is a PITA to use.

My QUESTION is this: is it in TW's interest overall to continue with a forum that (1) alienates new users and (2) creates hassle for regular users? (3) Would the hassle of change be broadly welcomed?

Best wishes
Josiah

[Zachary Storer]

[Zachary Storer]

[Zachary Storer]

Heh, speaking of which, there was a glitch with Google Groups when posting via my cell phone connection,
so I have multiple copies of the same post here. Sorry 'bou

[Zachary Storer]

It should read 'Sorry about that'.

[TonyM]

Zachary,

Whilst it is possible Google Groups will be dumped it is an altogether different Creature to Google Plus, and I suspect very UN-likely to go the way of the Dodo bird. Google Groups are really only mailing lists with a web Interface where as Google+ was Googles social media environment. Never the less we have had extensive conversations here about alternatives and I in particular have proposed and have running such alternatives as https://www.yammer.com/tiddlywiki

Regards

Tony

[@TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Zachary,

I think its unlikely that Google Groups would go. Its huge. As TonyM says its an interface on Web that is really an extension of two things: Mailing lists (principally ListServ originally) and also the vast system that falls under the NNTP protocol ("Usenet" which it has archives for since 1981. Usenet was one of the first robust ways to publicly share "posts" and do aggregated syndication. Its still alive and very useful, though many users probably don't know of it).

The end-user problem WE have is usability. This group really does need better access to its own history structured in a way that you can find the relevant things in the vast treasure troves of good quality posts that are here but v. difficult to find. GG remains a very crude tool and little is actively done to improve it by Google.

Just MO
Best wishes
Josiah

[David Gifford]

Hi Jeremy

Below in this thread, TiddlyTweeter and Mark S mention the idea of me inviting others to contribute to the TiddlyWiki toolmap.

I would be open to inviting select people to be able to edit the toolmap section of my Dynalist account. In fact, I could copy and paste my own version in another part of my account so that I can keep my own, personal version, and let the others edit as they wish with the 'official' version at the current URL.

Is this something you would like me to do, as an interim solution for the TW community? If so, who would you recommend to be editors/contributors? I think I would prefer your recommendations on this.

While on the subject, will you ever link to the toolmap from tiddlywiki.com? If not, then perhaps this is not worth the effort.

Blessings

Dave

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:17:02 AM UTC-5, Jeremy Ruston wrote:

This is a frequent topic of discussion and I hope we can improve things.

It’s worth pointing out that, though, that fixing this isn’t just a matter of spinning up a Heroku instance with a copy of Discourse. We need community infrastructure that is reliable, available, regularly backed up, properly maintained, handles our 13 year archive and has the means to deal with spam and abuse. None of that is impossible, but it’s way more work than just picking a piece of software and installing it somewhere….

Best wishes

Jeremy.

On 22 Aug 2018, at 07:25, Mohammad <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

What alternative do you propose?

A lot of very good stuff is buried in this forum and unfortunately it is difficult to find, categorize and use!

-Mohammad

--
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 tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
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/b20a01da-b55e-4c04-b748-172c40cd4ab1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Dave

Below in this thread, TiddlyTweeter and Mark S mention the idea of me inviting others to contribute to the TiddlyWiki toolmap.

I would be open to inviting select people to be able to edit the toolmap section of my Dynalist account. In fact, I could copy and paste my own version in another part of my account so that I can keep my own, personal version, and let the others edit as they wish with the 'official' version at the current URL.

Is this something you would like me to do, as an interim solution for the TW community? If so, who would you recommend to be editors/contributors? I think I would prefer your recommendations on this.

It would be great to open up the toolmap to other editors. Why not ask for volunteers? I suspect that the optimum number of editors is quite small, 2 or 3 people, to make it easy to coordinate the work.

While on the subject, will you ever link to the toolmap from tiddlywiki.com? If not, then perhaps this is not worth the effort.

Ah, I'm afraid I had no idea it was not linked. I don't tend to focus on compiling links for tw.com because it's something that many other people in the community can do, and I try to focus on the tasks for which I'm the blocker. I'm travelling today but if someone can submit a PR I'll be happy to merge it.

Best wishes

Jeremy

Blessings

Dave

On Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 3:17:02 AM UTC-5, Jeremy Ruston wrote:

This is a frequent topic of discussion and I hope we can improve things.

It’s worth pointing out that, though, that fixing this isn’t just a matter of spinning up a Heroku instance with a copy of Discourse. We need community infrastructure that is reliable, available, regularly backed up, properly maintained, handles our 13 year archive and has the means to deal with spam and abuse. None of that is impossible, but it’s way more work than just picking a piece of software and installing it somewhere….

Best wishes

Jeremy.

On 22 Aug 2018, at 07:25, Mohammad <mohammad...@gmail.com> wrote:

What alternative do you propose?

A lot of very good stuff is buried in this forum and unfortunately it is difficult to find, categorize and use!

-Mohammad

--
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 tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
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/b20a01da-b55e-4c04-b748-172c40cd4ab1%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.
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/656468c8-b781-497e-abff-fa9537190e60%40googlegroups.com.

[David Gifford]

Thanks Jeremy for your feedback. Happy travels!

[Mark S.]

Here we go. Maybe @David will want to check it out:

https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/pull/3478

-- Mark

[David Gifford]

Yeah, that's fine. TiddlyWiki Toolmap. Description can be, A topical index of known plugins, tutorials, themes, and other helpful tools for TiddlyWiki.

[Mark S.]

Updated description.