+Torgut Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I am wondering if the same group can manage more than one category. Because I don't see how, but then in the website, the layout suggests so: "This group manages the following: Total Records: 1 - Page: 1 of 1" Quote Link to comment
+BruceS Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 A group can only manage one category. The same members can be in multiple groups with each group managing a category. Quote Link to comment
+Ddraig Ddu Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 odd to define in such a way then ;-S Quote Link to comment
+Ianatlarge Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) So, categorically speaking, this is a group effort, where a group of members is categorised as a group, but a category is a group by itself, with only one category managed by one group, while a member can be in many groups, yet categorically only in one group at a time, while a waymark can be placed in many categories at any time, which are administered by different groups all the time, if categorised by the same members in different groups as categorically different, lest the category become unmanageable. Edited July 19, 2012 by Ianatlarge Quote Link to comment
+fi67 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 This is obviously a relic from the early days of the site development. Maybe the original plan was to let a group manage more than one category and later Groundspeak decided not to go that way. Quote Link to comment
+Torgut Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 This is obviously a relic from the early days of the site development. Maybe the original plan was to let a group manage more than one category and later Groundspeak decided not to go that way. Unfortunately and for no apparent reason. Quote Link to comment
Checkmark Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 This is obviously a relic from the early days of the site development. Maybe the original plan was to let a group manage more than one category and later Groundspeak decided not to go that way. Unfortunately and for no apparent reason. Let's say Larry, Curly and Moe decide to start two categories from one group. They start a "Three Stooges" category and a "Three's Company" category. Everything goes swimmingly for years until one day Curly learns that Joyce DeWitt said something mean about bald people. Well he isn't going to support that anymore so he quits. Now both groups would drop to two members. Both go on probation. That doesn't work. Now along comes Shemp and he joins the group. But he has no interest in the "Three's Company" part. Why should he have to deal with that? Now along comes Terry (she replaced Cindy, who replaced Chrissy) to lend a hand to the "Three's Company" group. She has no interest in the "Three Stooges". Same problem. When new people join the group they would get stuck with all of the categories that group is tending to. This is just two categories so imagine dozens. I think this should illustrate the problems with having a single group manage several categories. Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Funniest thing I've read all day! (And an excellent explanation of the group/category issue asked about) Edited July 24, 2012 by Max and 99 Quote Link to comment
+Torgut Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share Posted July 24, 2012 This is obviously a relic from the early days of the site development. Maybe the original plan was to let a group manage more than one category and later Groundspeak decided not to go that way. Unfortunately and for no apparent reason. Let's say Larry, Curly and Moe decide to start two categories from one group. They start a "Three Stooges" category and a "Three's Company" category. Everything goes swimmingly for years until one day Curly learns that Joyce DeWitt said something mean about bald people. Well he isn't going to support that anymore so he quits. Now both groups would drop to two members. Both go on probation. That doesn't work. Now along comes Shemp and he joins the group. But he has no interest in the "Three's Company" part. Why should he have to deal with that? Now along comes Terry (she replaced Cindy, who replaced Chrissy) to lend a hand to the "Three's Company" group. She has no interest in the "Three Stooges". Same problem. When new people join the group they would get stuck with all of the categories that group is tending to. This is just two categories so imagine dozens. I think this should illustrate the problems with having a single group manage several categories. Good explanation. I still don't agree but at least I understand. Just for the record, I don't agree because I believe the option should be on the people's side. But fine, I see the point. Quote Link to comment
+Torgut Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share Posted July 24, 2012 This is obviously a relic from the early days of the site development. Maybe the original plan was to let a group manage more than one category and later Groundspeak decided not to go that way. Unfortunately and for no apparent reason. Let's say Larry, Curly and Moe decide to start two categories from one group. They start a "Three Stooges" category and a "Three's Company" category. Everything goes swimmingly for years until one day Curly learns that Joyce DeWitt said something mean about bald people. Well he isn't going to support that anymore so he quits. Now both groups would drop to two members. Both go on probation. That doesn't work. Now along comes Shemp and he joins the group. But he has no interest in the "Three's Company" part. Why should he have to deal with that? Now along comes Terry (she replaced Cindy, who replaced Chrissy) to lend a hand to the "Three's Company" group. She has no interest in the "Three Stooges". Same problem. When new people join the group they would get stuck with all of the categories that group is tending to. This is just two categories so imagine dozens. I think this should illustrate the problems with having a single group manage several categories. Good explanation. I still don't agree but at least I understand. Just for the record, I don't agree because I believe the option should be on the people's side. But fine, I see the point. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.