Now that we are trained to wield ubiquitous "tag" that people prefer to send announcement "turn your head towards me", is there a possibility to expand on the feature and implement group tag ? (1) I want to create a group tag called "neurites" (2) Go to control panel -> create a group called "neurites" -> add the recipients for usage -> publish the group account (2) Another member wants to create @neurites as group tag , display already exists. (3) All the group tags are functionally public yet privately controlled (by owner) (4) The second member can chose to use existing tag or create a new one depending on the recipient list. Will be useful for sending out announcements to group of people (one regularly interacts with). Instead of cumbersome current-style ________________________________________________________________ @Srama, @Gauri03, @Laks09, @sokanasanah, @butterflyice, @PriyaSrini, @deepslikes ________________________________________________________________ why not swift new-style _______________ @neurites _______________ Mind each can have their own version of the group e.g neurites, arias_neurites, gauris_neurites, and it is not very different to what we do today except create my own group to summon my contacts for an activity.
Love this idea! Of late I've had to address this very specific group of users so often that I've found myself wishing for a group tag. Could we please have this feature?
Tan ta ta! @Jey, @IL_Admin We've a vote, shall I consider that as going out in patch release next weekend? :biggrin2:
Hi @Aria, This is a good idea. Let me check with the team regarding the feasibility and revert. Thanks.
Task for you: Comrade Gauri, now you go and sell this idea to rel. forum. That's where we rally our support. Be careful with the picks and crowbars. Emergency dial number : ∞ ∞ ∞
Gauri (pig-tailed, bespectacled): Could you girls please sign our petition? Them: Oh you nutters came up with a new harebrained scheme? G: Umm, actually, please listen na, it's a really cool idea. Them: Hear that girls? The dweebs had a cool idea! (Background laughter) G: (running behind them awkwardly) But but, please see no. Them: Buzz off! Go read a book or something. Later at the neurite club -- "Comrade Soka, you have drawn the short straw. You go in next."
I'm going to paste this on LN and we'll carry on there. Let's refrain from spreading our buffoonery all over the forum.
. Dear @IL_Admin , This suggestion seems to be good. But it should be carefully considered and implemented to ensure that it will not affect the cohesive IL Family and create a structure of numerous local circles, resulting in the narrowed interactions by natural selection.
Suryakala, You have put forth a very valid and strong point. I did think about it before submitting the thread. My view: 1) @group tag only facilitates but doesn't encourage exclusive participation. No functional redesign has been proposed when you shear the technical specification of supporting a group listing. Regardless of the method (yell, tap, tag, pm) we convoke our friends, favourites, regular participations, subscribers to our outlook to elicit participation, here only the style and syntax changes, instead of typing set of names we specify annotated group. 2) Au contraire, the group tag will induce cross-forum participation as members active across forums can tag their insular friends to draw their attention "Look what I found" and promote syncretic participation. 3) @group tag abstracts member listing in the post, whereby, if I were to type @neurites, it will not be expanded to list individual names encapsulating the details of the involved parties in the page (though notifications will be sent to group members and 'search for groups' will display the results, or hover over the group name will list the individual tags). Rather than slight members on the exclusion filter (which is evident today as what-you-type is what-you-see tag format) @group tag offers a soft mask; yet transparent, enumerable, viewable on demand. What is proposed — no radical changes in how we interact with members but a mechanism to cope up with steady interactions.
