Re: Re: We need a more UI-friendly group

The fact that it is only indexed by Facebook and other search engines are
not allowed to index it is a major flaw. I have a choice of using my GMail
(or any other mail client that has the ability to search) search (assuming
I subscribed from the beginning), or any other search engine to find
discussions in the group.
With your proposal, I am locked to Facebook (and its particular search
abilities). Also, not everyone has or uses Facebook. I, for one, have a
Facebook account, but I rarely go there. I realize I am not the majority,
of course, but why do I have to create or maintain a Facebook account to
discuss web platform documentation?
Facebook is also much heavier (to load and interact) than these almost
plain text mailing lists.

I feel your issue can be solved with a bot that posts everything in the
mailing list to Facebook. And if Facebook has some API for getting posts
and comments from the group, then it can be a full duplex situation, where
posts posted on the Facebook group would also reach the mailing list.


☆*PhistucK*

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 11:28 AM, abhimanyu0003 <abhimanyu@japanaddicts.org>
wrote:
>
> [MEANT FOR: RENOIR]
> I understand the usefulness and reasoning behind choosing Open. I also
> understand being vendor-independent. But in all mannerisms, I think a
> Facebook group is more suitable, not just because of the UX improvement,
> but more. For the more, I will surely chat with you.
>
> [MEANT FOR: PAT]
> Hi. I think I couldn't make myself much clear, as most points you've
> reiterated were already answered.
>
> Well, first, I like how you quote things. Please tell me how to do that.
>
> Now, I would again elaborate.
>
> Yes that's my mail client's problem. Of course people using Thunderbird on
> Ubuntu are a handful, but we still matter. So, here's the first flaw of the
> mail system. When I reply, the reply's To address is the address of the
> person who sends the email. You have to manually add the mailing list
> address. (I now use Reply All, which works fine, but I had to learn it
> myself. Beep. Bad for UX!)
>
> "They disappear off the Timeline". This time, kindly read it with full
> attention.
>
> Just like how you have to open your mail by going to gmail.com, the
> person will have to open the group (say facebook.com/groups/xyz) or
> navigate to it by clicking on the XYZ name which will be shown on the left
> (better and more probable scenario). Everything is equal right? You DO HAVE
> to open the interface: the group or webmail.
>
> Now, all the posts are there. There's a little button in each group,
> clicking on which you can receive ALL notifications from that group. So
> this works just like the mail system. You open Facebook, you're notified.
> You open email, you're notified.
>
> PLUS, some posts which get hot (more discussed, commented, or popular)
> ALSO appear on the common News Feed (Timeline is your personal "wall",
> nothing goes there). In the main home feed, popular posts are showed. WHICH
> IS A BONUS.
>
> Let's round it up: 1. You get all notifications, you can see ALL posts
> when you visit the group too. 2. You ALSO get to see popular posts in your
> main integrated feed, your homepage of Facebook.
>
> I never meant "index Facebook". Why the hell would I suggest that? I said
> it's not important. I guess you had another confusion here.
>
> Facebook supports automatic archiving. Once posted, nothing is deleted
> from the Web. Search engines cannot index that. But archives are present
> that can be accessed from Facebook itself.
>
> I understand what you mean by being open and public here. On Facebook
> however, we're in fact being more public. No public or social person, a
> non-technical guy, has even used search engines to crawl out email
> messages. However, he has more, and MUCH MORE, chances of finding our
> content if we're publishing in an Open-privacy Facebook group, because 85%
> of people who can afford computers, basic software, and internet are on
> Facebook. I want you to pay special attention to this point please.
>
> Pages are a different story. Groups can be "subscribed" to. Like sending
> an email to the subscription address to subscribe to this mailing list, on
> Facebook, people have to "Join" the group and click on the button that
> reads "Subscribe". Not much difference, okay? If email can be YOUR native
> interface of communication, Facebook can be so for 85% of people, don't
> overlook that fact. Don't think email are more down-to-earth, "real" faces
> of Internet. Web is the real face of Internet.
>
> You CAN search in Facebook GROUP, the thing we're talking about. Not your
> Facebook account, but the damn group for God's sake. There's a bar on
> top-right, that says "SEARCH". Enter your query and press enter. Done. Or
> click on the magnifying glass, that works too.
>
> Your personal concern is fully valid, but yet you fail to acknowledge the
> great UI improvement I'm proposing. Don't be a hypocrite. You say "I
> believe my personal concern is valid" and "I am describing a usability and
> workflow concern." then why do you, out-of-hand, dismiss the fact that
> Facebook is more efficient in terms of usability and workflow? At least
> accept that. Also, more user-friendly, intuitive, modern, next-generation
> Web-stuff (that we advocate: learning of best practices, not engineering of
> email protocols).
>
> Saying you don't see any purpose to respond further clearly tells me that
> you don't have any crucial counter-argument to my proposal.
>
> Thank you for your time. If you still cannot get around any of the
> argument I've provided for your points, feel free to email again.
>
> ---
> </Abhimanyu>
>
>
> ---- On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:36:56 -0800 *Pat Tressel <ptressel@myuw.net
> <ptressel@myuw.net>>* wrote ----
>
>
> Right here, I had to compose a new email, add p-wp@w3.. address, add your
> address (Pat), and add a subject before I could even start typing. I don't
> think this feeling is very great.
>
>
> Sounds like you could use a better email client...  I'm just using the
> ordinary web Gmail client, and not having those problems.  There is no need
> to add individuals who respond to your post to the To list as (clearly)
> they are subscribed to the mailing list.  Just keep the mailing list name
> as the To.
>
>
> Well, all things you've mentioned can be counter-argued or criticised. So,
> kindly read along.
>
> Facebook archives will also be permanently available.
>
>
> Sorry, but they disappear off the timeline.  Do you mean we should run
> some sort of scraper and copy them out to where search engines can get at
> them?  Search engines cannot crawl FB -- that would be a serious breach of
> privacy.
>
>
> There's no indexing I see of our emails either.
>
>
> They are public, not robotted out, and are indexed by the usual web search
> engines.
>
>
> Facebook doesn't deliver anything.
>
>
> Exactly the problem I noted.
>
> In the group (like I have to open my mail account, you have to open the
> Facebook group, nothing different), you can see all posts. Further, you'll
> get notified of each new post.
>
>
> I do not get notified on all posts from FB pages that I do follow.  I only
> get a selection of posts, generally for events.
>
>
> The Timeline thing you said is rather an advantage. The popular and more
> discussed posts of the group WILL ALSO BE SHOWN on members' Timelines, a
> bonus.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you have to search for the mail in your inbox, you have to search for
> the post in the group.
>
>
> I cannot search in FB.  I can search -- with a *search query*, like web
> search -- in my own email. I can also do a search in the mailing list
> archive using a web search engine.
>
> You say if there are lots of communities you have to see and one option is
> to have them as Facebook groups and other option is to have emails coming
> from them. Please do not confuse me. We're talking about taking WPD's work
> communication on Facebook, we're not dealing with a client and her problem
> with multiple groups she has to look at. I have fifteen groups on Facebook
> that I actively participate in and just four mailing lists. Yet, the
> mailing lists are more messy and a pathetic excuse in the name of user
> interface.
>
>
> I believe my personal concern is valid, and dismissing it out of hand as
> irrelevant is not a good way to have an engineering discussion.  I am
> describing a usability and workflow concern.
>
> Your gripe
>
>
> Ok, I see there is no purpose for me to respond further.  I am not the one
> with the "gripe", and you are imputing to me opinions that I do not hold.
> Your problems with email appear to stem from use of a defective email
> client that does not thread nor properly handle return addresses.
>
> -- Pat
>
>
>
>
>