LT2 Groups Redesign

Groups have been redesign to match the "LT2" style. As before, conceptdawg did the design. I did much of the rewriting of old code.

* Main groups page https://www.librarything.com/ngroups
* A sample group (Club Read 2021 https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/23208/Club-Read-2021)
* Your groups https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/yourgroups

The major changes are:

1. Groups is now tablet- and mobile-ready. If you're on the website, narrow your window to see what it looks like on mobile.
2. The design is much more accessible.
3. The main page ( https://www.librarything.com/ngroups ) is somewhat less information dense. But if you want more groups show, you can use the "list" toggle on the right.
4. Individual group pages ( example https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/23215/75-Books-Challenge-for-2021 ) are now centered on the Talk area, where most of the good interaction has, with the description limited to a top area, with a "See more" link to see the full description.
5. Group administrators now have a special page with all the groups they administer. The page also informs them when new members join. If a group is invitation-only, this is where you approve the members. We have more plans for this page.*

Other changes include:

6. The "Active This Week" groups are no longer sorted by total messages alone, but also by how members are reading them. The net result of this is to send certain popular, highly-read groups up. These include "Folio Society Devotees" and "Name that Book." These groups don't wrack up only hundreds of posts a week, but they are eagerly followed by lots and lots of members. "Pro and Con" is down, because, while members make a lot of messages, they are less widely read.
7. "Your Groups" now has filters to sort by activity vs. alphabetical, and active vs. all.
8. "Search Members' Books," a feature on all but the largest groups, has be repaired and allows you to search the libraries of all members.
9. The group-creation and group-editing pages now allow you to upload images, and they have been improved and simplified somewhat in other ways.
10. "Groups Suggested for You" has been improved. Mouse over the picture to see a small "x" to dismiss group suggestions.
11. The "Statistics" page for each group has been improved, and look like the site-wide "Zeitgeist" pages. It also gives how many members are watching the group; of course there is no list of watchers.
12. The bottom of "Your Groups" now has a show toggle for ignored groups, so you can regret your impetuous decision to ignore that fascinating group!

Let us know what you think, and, for now, go ahead to report any bugs here!

*But first we need to solve the "administrator problem." A lot of very old groups have an absentee administrator. We'll be looking for interested members to take over groups. The new system allows multiple administrators.

I don't have much to say because I rarely use the groups tab, but I do like being able to see which groups I've ignored.

On another topic, shadrach_anki wrote:

"Another thing that seems to be broken is clicking on the number for a Talk thread. Previously, doing this would take you to the first unread post. And if you mouse over the number, the link shows that it should take you to that post, but when you actually click on the number, the post information gets stripped away, so you wind up at the beginning of the thread."

I have confirmed this. We are working on it.

I do like being able to see which groups I've ignored.

We aim to please! ;)

Overall, I like the new look. It does highlight, however, just how much I relied on the list of my groups that appeared in the right-hand column for switching between groups; that process now has a couple more steps. I'm sure I'll get used to it in time, but for now it is a bit disconcerting.

I think having a limited view of the group description with the "see more" button is probably useful for most groups, though it does hide the majority of the instructional text in the Name that Book group (though it is debatable how many people actually read it).

Bugs I have noticed (I am using Firefox on Windows 10):

- Clicking on the "new" number for a thread does not take you to the new posts in that thread, it just drops you at the top of the thread. If you look at the link while mousing over the number, it shows the post number, but actually clicking on the link strips that number off.

- The sort filters on Your Groups are not persistent. If I select Alphabetical, it will change things as expected. However, when I go back to the page, it reverts to the Activity sort, but Alphabetical is still selected.

That’s nice being able to search within the group. I will surely use that feature. Thanks!

Just to follow on one of the comments in >4 shadrach_anki:, the limited view of the group description does hide some useful links to wikis I keep in the group description text for the 75 Books Challenge groups. I can rewrite the text to make them rise to the top, but I wonder if it would be possible to have wiki links in a side column or some such.

Generally, I like the changes and am ecstatic about the Groups You Admin page!

>6 drneutron:

You know how authors have a links section? (See J. K. Rowling.) We could add such a section to group pages.

That would be perfect!

Do groups we're ignoring not show up under "Active Groups?" Because there's a couple groups I ignore simply because they have so many posts and it clogs up "All Topics" in Talk, but I still want to be able to easily drop into the group periodically to see what's going on. And now they're not anywhere on the Groups page.

(See also: https://xkcd.com/1172/)

I would prefer for alphabetization of groups to be straight down in columns instead of horizontal and then return. Can this be changed? (Under Groups--Your Groups)

I really do wish the way posts were colored remained as they were in the past with them turning to purple when you've read them, but turning back to blue as soon as there is an unread post there. (At least the all blue is better than where they turned to purple and never turned back to blue, making you think you had read them when you had not.)

I also wish the stars on starred posts were closer to the number of posts needing to be read since most of us are in the habit of right-clicking on the number side. It's difficult to follow the line out to see if it is starred or not in the group view.

I must confess that I'd been using Groups because the "talk" thread was so messed up by the new rollout features, and it was easier to navigate. Now that it is messed up, it almost makes me want to give up groups. The new is not improved.

As mentioned in another thread:

Looking under "More . . ." at "Newest" and "Languages", I don't have the option for a list view, as I do with "Most Members", "Explore", and "Your Groups".

I much prefer the list view as it eliminates all that white space.

We seem to have lost the ability to see when the last post was, in a thread.
(I am accessing, perforce, by a mobile - but I do not prefer the simplification.) Am I missing something?

We are still working on the new-message logic for the Talk forums on group pages. It's a regrettable omission, but also somewhat complicated.

>9 casvelyn: Do groups we're ignoring not show up under "Active Groups?" Because there's a couple groups I ignore simply because they have so many posts and it clogs up "All Topics" in Talk, but I still want to be able to easily drop into the group periodically to see what's going on. And now they're not anywhere on the Groups page.

Yes, group you ignore do not show up anywhere except for the "Groups your ignore" link on the "Your Groups" page.

Your use-case didn't occur to me. But I feel confident that, if we showed ignored groups in lists, other people would get angry at us for doing so. They would say things like "I don't EVER want to see Pro and Con? That's why I ignored it!"

>10 thornton37814: I would prefer for alphabetization of groups to be straight down in columns instead of horizontal and then return. Can this be changed? (Under Groups--Your Groups)

I don't believe there's any ability here. But I direct this question to conceptDawg, who did the design.

because the "talk" thread was so messed up by the new rollout features

What do you identify as the mess-up?

>11 lilithcat:

I'll look into adding it.

>12 -pilgrim-:

No, it's our fault. We're working on it.

Can the user choose the order of the various group blocks (group groups ;-) ) ? I am not interested in the "Active this Week" section that uses a lot of space at the top of the page, and I would prefer to move it down if possible.

>14 Felagund: What do you care about?

Bug or feature?

Adding a new topic from the Talk page now gets the error 'This is a private group'.

To post a new topic, I now have to switch to the Groups page, select the group I want to post to, then create a new topic.

Please have the ability to create a new topic directly from 'Talk' and select the group from a drop-down, rather than the extra steps now involved.

Frankly, I ignore the Groups page; I've joined the groups I'm interested in and have zero interest in the rest.

Where and how might I volunteer to be an admin for certain abandoned groups?

As you roll out LT2, you are abandoning tag translations in the tag clouds. Is that deliberate? I've commented on it before but not received a reply.

I'll like new groups once once everything can be seen in list view, but the default view makes me seriously apprehensive about upcoming changes to more complex, info-packed parts of the site like work and author pages, the catalogue itself, etc. I suddenly see them stripped of all the nifty bells and whistles and I'll be staring into a screen occupied by few oversized features. This isn't where we are heading, surely? Please :( Have mercy and make those more mobile friendly in the app, not on the site itself.

Dutch LT:
The same bug that is still in Zeitgeist "LibraryThing in het Frans" (=LibraryThing in French), returns in Groups "Taal: Frans" (=Language: French)

It is the same in German and Italian, so I suspect all non English sites.

Looks good.

>13 timspalding: But I feel confident that, if we showed ignored groups in lists, other people would get angry at us for doing so. They would say things like "I don't EVER want to see Pro and Con? That's why I ignored it!"

No, that makes sense. I'm probably an edge case anyway. I can always unignore the groups and then ignore the individual topics in All Topics instead.

>15 timspalding: Not who you were asking, but I personally would rather have "Your Groups" at the top rather than having to scroll through a fairly sizeable chunk of "active this week" to navigate to my groups which are more often the ones I am looking for

sorry just coming back to this after playing around - looking at it, I would prefer if clicking the Groups tab defaulted to "your groups" rather than "explore" on the left. Then having Active groups on the explore page makes much more sense to me.

I've noticed that at the bottom of a group, there appears to be a toggle to change between mobile view and desktop view. However, I don't see any difference between the two.

ETA: It also seems that to see the groups I watch but don't join, I need to go back to the home page where before all my groups were on the right in a list so I could just jump from group to group.

>18 anglemark:

No. I wasn't sure if tag translations were used for group tags. Adding to bug list.

Wow. Really not fond of these changes, it's even difficult to navigate on my laptop. Clicking on unread messages doesn't automatically take you to the unread ones, you have to click again. (I see you are working on that)

Screen is taken up by too much side info crap and the main group page doesn't show the pretty picture of the Green Dragon Clammy posted unless you click to see more. :(

I am one who does not use the "Talk" tab, I always go to the main page of the group, and I depended on the list of groups which used to be on the right side of the main group page to navigate easily between my groups. I see one can still do it, but it takes more clicks. I don't like clicks. :)

>22 casvelyn: I've been doing the same thing, ignore a group because of high activity but check in on it. The addition of the Ignored Groups list makes that easy enough, in my opinion.

>15 timspalding: Active this Week is less important to a member (at least, to me) as Your Groups, so their order should be switched.

>22 casvelyn:

No, that makes sense. I'm probably an edge case anyway.

I don't think so. I do the same thing! I don't want a whole lot of topics cluttering my view of Talk, but on occasion I do like to go to the Group page of an ignored group to see the topics.

"Still didn't find what you are looking for?"
Any member may create groups to discuss shared interests with other members."

Suggestion: Please add a reminder of the search feature at the top of the page in this section. I feel as if that's too easy to miss or forget about while scrolling, scrolling, scrolling through options.

>24 dudes22: It's not very intuitive, but that toggle is only there to enable you to use the desktop view also on your mobile unit, not the other way around. Behind a computer screen it does nothing.

>20 FAMeulstee: Confirmed on .nl site



Adding to bugs.

>16 Maddz:

Similar issue raised in Bug Collectors: http://www.librarything.com/topic/328678

HOW do I ignore a group? I went to the group's page and there's no ignore button anymore! I don't want to watch it, I want to anti-watch it. Where did the button go?

Not sure if this is a bug, or as intended, but there is no display toggle for my 'Your Groups' section on the group page:

>33 reconditereader:

Which group? I still see it; it's towards the bottom of the right-hand column, along with "Flag this Group".

This has smashed the way I use Talk to pieces, but I think there are some strange consequences generally.

First, I agree with >9 casvelyn: (and love the cartoon too, btw :))

Tim, you used an extreme example which you knew would be met with the approval of many people--Pro & Con ("urgh, I NEVER want to see THAT").

But there is more than one reason for Ignoring a group and your example is, I'd bet, an outlier.

For example, similar to >9 casvelyn:, I ignore quite a few active groups that would otherwise quickly fill the view of Talk for me, but that I still like to look at occasionally. There's the Bug Collectors--most of the time I don't need but it has a steady level of activity that usefully kept it available on the "Most Active" list. Now it's gone and I have to dig for it or bookmark the group page or un-Ignore it and put up with new worse solutions for not seeing dozens of Bug Collectors threads all the time.

Moreover, I prefer having a site-wide representative view of Most Active groups because 1) that's informative about the whole site (as opposed to my bubble) 2) that's how I might notice if something interesting is going on in places where I only look in occasionally, like Spammers or Flaggers or the Movie Lovers etc. 3) that's the easiest way to keep au courant with the most popular groups all at once

Second, the dumping of the Ignored Groups as far away as possible, and behind a sequence of "Show more"s... why not just burn them? :) This too shows that you assume every group is Ignored like Pro & Con.

The worst is what a mess that dump site is--just a huge jumble (in my case, apparently I have 606 groups on Ignore), a total un-navigable mess--and unsortable? at least I'm not finding any way to order them. So I'm seeing hundreds of entries all out of order, be it alphabetical or, where years are in the names, chronological--and there are also interspersed dozens of entries without names or picture to identify them at all.

I started trawling in this mess for Bug Collectors and gave up after the fourth "Show More".

Must this section be such a mess?

Third, to the "general consequences". Maybe I'm not looking at this right, but if you wanted to make Talk more accessible/more accessed, doesn't something like this strong barrier to site-wide info work AGAINST that?

Puzzled about how this is better than the earlier set-up in that regard.

TL; DR--I'd appreciate it very much if we could have somewhere, at least as a module on the Home Page or something, the site-wide "Most Active Groups", regardless of which groups we may be Ignoring.

Apologies if this has already been noted, but it used to be that when I was at the main page for one of the groups I'm a member of, I would see a list of my other groups in alphabetical order on the righthand column provided as links. I enjoy being able to just move down those links and check in on each group from time to time. I found that process enjoyable and convenient. Is that coming back? If not, why was it eliminated? Thanks!

I just noticed this: "You must be a member of this group to see discussion topics." I know that many groups are "join to post", but I've never seen this before! I'm not sure it's a good idea. Sometimes, seeing the topics that a group is discussing will encourage someone to join.

>38 lilithcat:

Which group? This has always been an option, btw. But maybe you're seeing it wrongly.

>38 lilithcat:

Ack, seriously? Well, I don't get it--again, how is this supposed to stimulate Talk?

>40 LolaWalser:

This has always been an option. There are a number of private groups on LT and have been for more than a decade. Some are rather active.

>39 timspalding:

It may be that I just never noticed it before.

I was looking at "Newest Groups" and was curious about this one: http://www.librarything.com/ngroups/23288/WriteLightNight-Talk-Group-All-welcome

Ignored groups are no longer ignored. Or rather, they are ONLY ignored on the "All Topics" page of Talk. They are not ignored on the Groups pages.

I think this is an ugly and counter-intuitive option. But apparently it's how some users have been using it. If we get complaints that ignoring isn't ignoring, then I may have to add an option so you can choose between partial and whole ignoring, or perhaps have both "ignore" and "silo off" options.

>43 timspalding:

I have confirmed that group really is private.

The "Remove from suggestions" tooltip under Groups Suggested for You is seriously broken on non-English sites.

>36 LolaWalser: I think the use case of not wanting to see the posts from a group on the Talk page could be met by adding a new Hide option on the Talk page, while keeping the Ignore option to mean never seeing the group anywhere, except the ignored group section

ETA or maybe call it Hide Posts

>43 timspalding: Oh thank you! I get that it may not be intuitive to everyone, although apparently I'm not *quite* the edge case I thought I was. Maybe it's just me, but I've always viewed Talk as "conversations I specifically want to see" and Groups as "all the conversations there are." Like >36 LolaWalser:, there's some groups I've ignored because I truly don't care to see their posts ever again. Although at least for me, seeing that the group exists on Groups isn't an annoyance because I don't have to see the details of what they're talking about like one does in Talk under All Topics. But the bulk of the groups that I ignore are ones that I either want to see, but not all the time, or ones that I feel neutral toward, but they just talk too much.

>43 timspalding:

Thanks Tim, honestly I don't get why would having all groups on the Group page--obviously just the tiny fraction that may show up on the Most Active list--after all these years be a problem. Had there been ongoing campaigns against the Groups page as it was, it would be easier to understand.

If we get complaints that ignoring isn't ignoring,

Then the question is whose idea or manner of Ignoring should prevail where. If the "when I Ignore something I want every sign of it removed from every bit of any page I may or may not land on" faction is so large or you happen to agree with them, that still leaves the question of access for people who like a full picture--somewhere.

As with blocking users, some are not happy that their handles are still visible and their posts only hidden a click away. I don't think there's one "right" answer in either case, it's simply what you decide to do.

>30 anglemark: - Thanks for explaining that.

>47 casvelyn:

Maybe it's just me, but I've always viewed Talk as "conversations I specifically want to see" and Groups as "all the conversations there are."

That's a great way of putting it, exactly!

But the bulk of the groups that I ignore are ones that I either want to see, but not all the time, or ones that I feel neutral toward, but they just talk too much.

Yes. There are so many nuances. Personally I can't think of ANY group I've ignored with a "erase them from the face of LT and expunge from very memory" attitude--even for those mystery club groups, that I know I'll never read let lone join, their presence on the "Most Active" list, when they're there, is a piece of global info for the site.

I'm glad not to see their threads in Talk, but why on earth would it bother me to have them marked as active on the "Most Active" list if/when they get there...

>47 casvelyn: Maybe it's just me, but I've always viewed Talk as "conversations I specifically want to see" and Groups as "all the conversations there are."

This was really helpful to me to hear put this way. I tend to think about Groups as mini-communities and Talk as the conversations that go on in those communities. Some communities I am a part of, and some I am not. If I want to know what's going on site-wide, I go to Hot Topics in Talk. That's why I use Ignore only for things that I really just have no interest in seeing. So, I was having a hard time getting my head around the ignore issue, but this helps.

>45 anglemark: The "Remove from suggestions" tooltip under Groups Suggested for You is seriously broken on non-English sites.

It seems to be working for me. Can you be more explicit about what's broken and on what site?

>34 macsbrains: Not sure if this is a bug, or as intended, but there is no display toggle for my 'Your Groups' section on the group page:

So, it was intended. The idea was that you don't really need to see the expanded view--they're YOUR GROUPS, so you know what they are.

I have, however, added it in. It slows the page down very slightly, because it now needs to get descriptions for all your groups. But it's more consistent. I have not done so for the "Your Groups" page, though.

>15 timspalding:
I am mostly interested in the LT site groups, and of course the ones I have joined. There's a lot of activity in many groups, and that's clearly a good thing for Librarything, but it doesn't mean I have to care.

>43 timspalding: Might be time to add a Mute option to go along with Ignore.

>52 timspalding: Interesting. It does indeed work on Chrome. This is in Firefox 84.0.1 under Big Sur (Mac):

https://www.librarything.com/pic/8041571

Design/layout question when viewing on laptop, not mobile..

GROUP pages have coloured command boxes (Watch, Join, Ignore, Flag, Post) in various locations. Could they be consolidated into one place on the menu? Why make us scroll to the bottom looking for the Ignore button ;)

Good to see the rollout continue..Thanks!

>50 LolaWalser: Yeah, even the groups that make me want to despair of humanity and go live under a rock, just seeing that the group exists doesn't bother me.

>51 megbmore: Interesting. I never use Hot Topics, because the default sorting isn't chronological. Also because "hotness" generally means that the slower but engaging conversations never bubble to the surface.

>53 timspalding: So, it was intended. The idea was that you don't really need to see the expanded view--they're YOUR GROUPS, so you know what they are.

I agree with this logic. It was just weird from a visual perspective to have different formats for the different sections and the page not be divided by those formats. I presume then, that this is why the suggested groups section does not have a toggle. The toggles came to my attention as I was trying to make the whole page match and couldn't. It was either boxes/list/boxes/boxes/boxes or list/list/list/list/boxes, so I thought maybe it was a mistake. Now, it matches. (Though I personally prefer the more list-like view.)

>58 casvelyn: Yes, I should have been clearer: I use Hot Topics to see where are a lot of people are paying attention and All Topics to get a broader sense. I think of these as different doors into different parts of the house party we call LT.

>4 shadrach_anki:, >24 dudes22:, >26 MrsLee:, >37 rocketjk: I also miss having the list of my groups on the right-hand column. In talk view the group whose threads I want to visit first is buried under the much larger, much more active group that I want to check less often.

In my brain, it makes sense to read through threads group by group -- that way if a conversation spills from one thread into another, it is easier to follow because I'll read the different conversation bits closer together. Also different groups have different tones/contexts for their conversations, so rather than jumping back and forth from informal chat to long-form reviews to terse comments, I prefer to read through one group at a time before switching to the next.

>15 timspalding:, >23 Caramellunacy:, >27 aspirit:, >54 Felagund: I also want to see "Your Groups" above "Active this week". Or have the tab default to Your Groups rather than explore. Because now I have to "from group A click on groups tab, scroll down to your groups, and click on group B" when I am reading posts rather than "when I am done with group A just click on group B" in the right hand column.

Using Chrome on an Android phone the screen is cut off on the left and right. On the left there's a toggle between Alphabetical and something else that I can only tell ends in ity. On the right there's a box with a magnifying glass icon and the text, Search Gr.

I'd appreciate if the group suggestions on the Groups page were collapsible like the other modules. It'd increase consistency and it's a rare day it recommends a group I don't know what it is anyway.

Just came on and found this new Groups stuff, and WOW it's slow! Is that something that is known and in the works, or is that just how it's going to be now with all the changes? Took 20 seconds to load this thread, longer to load the Groups tab.

I admit to not reading every single post here (it's late and I'm tired), but I did see someone ask about ordering the group-blocks differently. PLEASE please make that a thing, I have no interest in 'active this week' and right now it takes up the entire screen! I have to scroll down to even *see* my own groups.

Also, bug or deliberate that this very group is not listed at all in the 'site groups' block? I was specifically looking for this group once I saw things were different, but even clicking the 'show more' in the site group block doesn't show New Features at all.

>63 AndreasJ:

When I said "collapsible" I meant, if that wasn't obvious, switchable to the mode where you see only the small image and the name, and no description.

What’s going on with the Group/Talk pages? I know the relaunch is a work in progress, but today’s mess actually prevents me from reading and posting in a normal fashion.
I access people’s threads from the list on the group page by clicking the “new/total” link. Today this either gives an error (500 Internal Server Error), or takes ages to load and then doesn’t display properly (the bars separating posts are missing and the new messages box is messed up) or (admittedly, the least annoying problem) doesn’t talke me to the latest post, so I have to do additional clicks on “jump to first unread” or “1 new”. (By the way, this is pretty much the same function, so what’s the intended difference?) And why are there different problems resulting from the same action?

>66 MissWatson: It took three clicks for the message to post, editing doesn't work. I'll look in again later in the day.

>64 Heather19:, >66 MissWatson:

There are server problems going on. http://www.librarything.com/topic/328641

>68 lilithcat: Ah, that would explain the hickups. Things are behaving normally now.

>16 Maddz:, >32 lilithcat:
Adding a new topic from the Talk page now gets the error 'This is a private group'.

The same thing happens when you use the "continue this topic" feature at the bottom of a thread which, as noted in >32 lilithcat:, has been posted in Bug Collectors.

I haven't seen a response to this issue here and am raising it again here so it is not overlooked. Is it related to New Groups? To the server issues mentioned in >68 lilithcat:? Or will it be addressed through the usual Bug Collectors process?

Thanks.

>70 lauralkeet: Looks like this has been fixed; clicking on the New topic button on the talk page brings up an interface with the ability to select the group to post to.

>71 Maddz: That's good news re: the problem you reported.
The thread continuation feature is still not working. Today it brings up a "New Topic" page but you can't do anything on that page. Here's what it looks like:

>71 Maddz: and >72 lauralkeet:, Yep we're currently working on it, hold please. Thanks for your patience.

>16 Maddz: "Adding a new topic from the Talk page now gets the error 'This is a private group'."

That's a bug! We're currently on it. Update soon.

ETA: I will update the bug thread here when it's fixed: https://www.librarything.com/topic/328678.

>73 kristilabrie: Thanks. I just posted similar information to >72 lauralkeet: over on the Bug Collectors thread and will watch that space for updates. Thanks for responding!

>64 Heather19: Added the missing New features Group in Site Groups to the bug list, thanks!

>16 Maddz: This should now be fixed, thanks for your patience.

>20 FAMeulstee: >31 kristilabrie: Looks like it is fixed, both in groups and zeitgeitst, thanks!

Ahhh, I'd been avoiding the Talk page and just looking directly at my one favourite group, where I could still enjoy the more usable old Talk view. I decide what threads to read by the combination of new messages and whether they're starred. Putting the star off to the left is pretty useless. The excessive bold continues to be a turn-off as well.

>79 _Zoe_: The excessive bold continues to be a turn-off as well.

Yes.

>79 _Zoe_: >80 casaloma: What do you mean by excessive bold? Threads with unread messages are bolded, which is a standard in any forum I've ever seen. The only other thing bolded I see is 'group' 'topic' etc. headings

Here's the way I worked through the pages in the old design which worked well. Like many others, I right-clicked to open messages in new tabs--about ten to twenty at a time. As I right-clicked on a message, that message turned from blue to purple, allowing me to keep my place in the process. (Now right-clicking keeps the message blue, and there is no way to tell which ones I've already clicked. (If you refresh the page, they turn black unless a new post appeared in the interim. Then it moves to the top and becomes blue.) At the beginning of the new rollout, you changed any viewed message to purple, but it stayed purple even if there were new posts. That was confusing! With the current design, I have to constantly refresh the page to keep track of where I am. In the old design, any time there was a new message it returned to blue. I'm fine with things with no new messages turning black upon a refresh, but I'd certainly like a better way to keep track of where I am--and the blue changing to purple was a good way to do that. I'd be happy if right-clicking on something unbolded it and turned it black. I just want to be able to keep track of where I am.

I also loved the alphabetical one-column listing of my groups on the right. There is no rhyme or reason to the order of "my groups" in this new design.

>63 AndreasJ: I'd appreciate if the group suggestions on the Groups page were collapsible like the other modules. It'd increase consistency and it's a rare day it recommends a group I don't know what it is anyway.

Done.

Any chance "Your Groups" could come before "Active This Week"?

>81 SandraArdnas:

BOLD should be used to highlight selective text, not an entire page.

TALK, in particular, is usually an entire page of bold text staring at me. Using bold for UNREAD threads seems backwards. If everything’s highlighted, then nothing is highlighted.

(Referring to full screen, not mobile)

>85 casaloma: I'm still confused. The whole page is in bold only if you have whole page with unread messages. Not only is it standard for forums (and I'd personally protest if it was abolished), but more importantly it was like that in the old design too. That is the most confusing part.

>85 casaloma: I would find it very confusing to highlight topics you've already read. I use the bold to point me toward the topics I haven't read yet so I can easily find them and read them.

>81 SandraArdnas:, >86 SandraArdnas: I don't have screenshots or a good enough memory of the old design of the talk page to specify the difference (the new design is a larger or different font?), all I know is that on a laptop in the new design when there are a lot of unread messages (ie everything is bolded) it feels like the talk page is "screaming at me". Maybe the font size is larger to accommodate mobile screens and/or there is less white space than the old design? I don't know, I just know it is a less pleasant interface.

>82 thornton37814: "I also loved the alphabetical one-column listing of my groups on the right. There is no rhyme or reason to the order of "my groups" in this new design."

I came to post about this -- on the YourGroups page (https://www.librarything.com/topic/328654#n7385277) I can choose to sort by activity or alphabetical and filter by activity.

I have selected Sort: Alphabetical, Filter: Active, but alphabetical isn't sticky. If I navigate away from the page and come back, although the alphabetical button is highlighted, the groups are sorted by activity and I have to click activity then alphabetical in order to sort the groups alphabetically.

This is in on a laptop, windows 10, firefox.

ELiz_M (#88):

I don't have screenshots or a good enough memory of the old design of the talk page to specify the difference (the new design is a larger or different font?), all I know is that on a laptop in the new design when there are a lot of unread messages (ie everything is bolded) it feels like the talk page is "screaming at me". Maybe the font size is larger to accommodate mobile screens and/or there is less white space than the old design? I don't know, I just know it is a less pleasant interface.

The font size was made much larger when New Talk was rolled out. Discussion starts in this thread from mid-October:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/325384

If you click on "Change Style" at the bottom of the page, you can choose a font that's more to your liking.

As for the bolding, I understand that it feels "screamy" when you have a whole page of unread, but that's the standard usage just about everywhere - draw your attention to what needs your attention. It focuses you on what you presumably will want to know about - that a thread of interest has new posts - not on the ones that are all done. Like others, I'd be extremely confused if it were flipped around.

>88 ELiz_M: Yes, that is indeed possible. The new talk page looked a huge font to me, but the addition of different styles to chose from helped. Have you tried them (at the bottom of the talk page and I assume group pages too). They offer different fonts, some of which appear smaller than others.

Could we please have an option to Mark All Threads As Read?

So...it looks like the "click on the number to go to unread posts" thing has been fixed, but it's also applied when you click on the thread title as well, and it drops you to the end of the thread if there are no unread posts, which is actually not ideal in a lot of cases (lots of journal-type threads will have posts that regularly get edited up at the top of the thread, for example).

My preference would be for clicking on the new post number to get taken to the first unread post, and clicking on the thread title to get taken to the top of the thread (regardless of the presence or lack of unread posts).

>93 shadrach_anki: The two are a single field, so wherever you click you're clicking the same link. t was changed with the first talk changes. However, there is a 'go to the top' link right of the timestamp on every post (the up arrow)

>94 SandraArdnas: It was changed with the first Talk changes, yes, but only if you accessed the threads via Talk. Going into them via the Group pages still worked the old way. I know that I can get back to the top of the thread from every single post, but it's an extra step and a mild annoyance if there are no new posts in the thread.

I cannot emphasise enough how much I love that clicking on the thread title takes me to the first unread post. It could be the most appreciated change for me ever on LT.

>82 thornton37814: Here's the way I worked through the pages in the old design which worked well. Like many others, I right-clicked to open messages in new tabs--about ten to twenty at a time. As I right-clicked on a message, that message turned from blue to purple, allowing me to keep my place in the process. (Now right-clicking keeps the message blue, and there is no way to tell which ones I've already clicked. (If you refresh the page, they turn black unless a new post appeared in the interim. Then it moves to the top and becomes blue.) At the beginning of the new rollout, you changed any viewed message to purple, but it stayed purple even if there were new posts. That was confusing! With the current design, I have to constantly refresh the page to keep track of where I am. In the old design, any time there was a new message it returned to blue. I'm fine with things with no new messages turning black upon a refresh, but I'd certainly like a better way to keep track of where I am--and the blue changing to purple was a good way to do that. I'd be happy if right-clicking on something unbolded it and turned it black. I just want to be able to keep track of where I am.

Okay, is this fixed for you?

timspalding (#97):

Speaking of lots of bold seeming "screamy", yikes.

>90 lorax:, >91 SandraArdnas: Thank you so much for pointing out and explaining the "change style" link!

Yes, it was the larger font size that made the new design with all bolded unread messages feel "more screamy" than the old talk design with all bolded unread messages. I have chosen a different style and find it so much more pleasant than the default. :)

>96 anglemark:

I love that clicking on the thread title takes me to the first unread post.

I'm actually finding that a bit annoying.

I frequently want to refer people to a thread I've already read, and when I go to copy the URL, I have to strip out a bunch of junk or they'll get taken to the first unread post. Which is not what I want.

>83 timspalding:

Thank you!

>85 casaloma:

Our Talk using habits obviously differ - I'm usually looking at a page that's half or less threads with unread posts. So your suggestion to switch the bolding would, apart from going against the de facto web standard, make talk louder for me.

>97 timspalding: No. They still remain purple and bold when I right-click.

>89 ELiz_M: The problem to me is that they are going:
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

Instead of:
Group 1 Group 3 Group 5
Group 2 Group 4 Group 6

We are used to columns being sorted to read down with column breaks at the bottom.

I think I'm just going to hate the new groups. If it gets too bad, I'll just give them up. I enjoy chatting about books with folks here, but if the forums don't work well, I have the option to leave the forums and just use LT for cataloging/reviewing what I read and/or own. I think social media, in general, is becoming a bust. Seems everyone is leaving Facebook, Twitter, etc. too.

The old Group/Talk pages didn't bold everything for an unread message. I think it was just the unread numbers and maybe the subject, but not the group name.

I would have taken a screenshot if I'd known that people would try to deny the change. LT staff certainly know what was bolded before, anyway.

Here, Tim posted a screenshot of what it looked like before. Only the unread numbers are bolded. Not the topic, not the total number of posts.

>105 _Zoe_: oh, that's a sight for sore eyes!

Ah, thank you!

There was so much else changed that, frankly, I didn't remember that particular aspect. Mostly the Enormous Whitespace Explosion (since toned down, thankfully) and the Giant Font were so memorable that I sort of didn't remember the bolding changes until you pointed them out.

>104 _Zoe_: The old Group/Talk pages didn't bold everything for an unread message.

Thank you for posting the screenshot to confirm this.

My recollection of what happened on the Talk page was that at first Chris denoted the threads with unread messages with a different color but there were many people who complained that they couldn't tell the difference. So he made the threads bold instead which seemed to satisfy the users of that page.

>109 jjwilson61: Yes. There were actually LOTS of changes due to feedback when we launched Talk.

Proving: You can please none of the people all the time and all of the people none of the time. :)

OKAY!

So, we had a big staff meeting, and talked through all the feedback. We decided on a number of steps, which will happen over the next few days.

1. We are adding a "Group List" toggle on Group pages, so members can have access to a full list of their groups at all times. (And members who don't want it, don't open it.)
2. The main groups tab is going to be renamed "Groups Home."
3. The "Your Groups" page will show ALL your groups by default, not some with a "show more."
4. The "Your Groups" page will sort vertically, not horizontally.
5. Groups Home will START with about three inches of your groups--that is, flipped with "Active this week," showing you most of the groups you care about.

That's a summation and may confused. Know anyway that we are actively working to make Groups more useful and friendly to members old and new. We'll announce as we release things.

>89 ELiz_M: I have selected Sort: Alphabetical, Filter: Active, but alphabetical isn't sticky. If I navigate away from the page and come back, although the alphabetical button is highlighted, the groups are sorted by activity and I have to click activity then alphabetical in order to sort the groups alphabetically.

Fixed. Thanks!

When I go to the Groups page and click on a group I ignore, like Bug Collectors, I don't see the threads anymore, just this:



I'd post this in Bugs, but... :)

>111 timspalding: Thank you!

One thing that I've been finding annoying reading threads on my phone is that i can't make the images people post, like the one above from Lola, bigger.

>110 conceptDawg: Were there complaints about insufficient bolding/inability to identify unread threads *before* the new Talk?

On the group home page, it doesn't all show up on my android screen using Chrome. I can't see the stars now that they are on the left.

Meh, this seems much chunkier than before, the posts I've read stay bold unless I refresh.

This thread has photos of bookcovers in post 45 I think, they are all a narrow bar instead of the normal view.

>113 LolaWalser: All the bugs are gone, didn't you hear!

Okay, again, we thought "ignore" was a hard ignore. I'll check up on the code

>115 jjwilson61: One thing that I've been finding annoying reading threads on my phone is that i can't make the images people post, like the one above from Lola, bigger.

Conceptdawg

Meh, this seems much chunkier than before, the posts I've read stay bold unless I refresh.

Can you explain this more?

>118 timspalding:

we thought "ignore" was a hard ignore.

I'd just like it the way it was before--the threads from the Ignored groups would not be visible in Talk, but you could see them if you clicked on the Group somewhere, like the Group page.
Otherwise we are forced either to put up with all the threads in Talk, or keep switching between Ignore/unIgnore every time we want to look at a busy group.

>119 LolaWalser:

Yeah. Should be fixed now.

>120 timspalding:

Thank you! I'll close that bug.

Please restore the bug! Only half kidding.

Until tonight, I could enjoy LT using Firefox. Now the font size is so small and the horizontal column width so wide that it's like watching a tennis match trying to scan text.

I went through all the "style" choices, one is worse than the other, I'm afraid.

I ckd pg info and see that LT appears to have been formatted only for IE and Chrome browsers, but it's pretty disappointing in Chrome, though not quite so infinitesimal in font size.

Only the LT web site snaps to this tiny font and horizontal stretching.

What can be done to restore the prior proportions and font sizes for Firefox users?

I miss having my groups in links on the right hand column to easily switch between my groups. Any chance this will come back? Or maybe an optional feature that can be enabled/disabled for user preference?

Can we get a "Groups Suggested to Ignore" section?

>118 timspalding: First, sorry if that post was terse, I was being naughty at work when it was calm, then it got busy.

Second, I meant "clunky" not "chunky" thank you autocorrect.

I don't go to the Groups tab to look for groups. I have all I want at the moment. I go directly to The Green Dragon home page, and from there, I read the unread posts. The home page no longer shows properly on my phone, even when I click "show more" there is a lot missing. I can't see my starred threads, the star doesn't show. I can't easily navigate to other groups from a link of my groups on the right, now I have to go through 2 additional steps (first world issue, I know, but you asked),
When I read the unread posts in a thread, I have to hit the arrow to return to the top of the thread, then hit the link to the group, otherwise it won't show that that thread has been read. I used to be able to use the back arrow on my phone and the posts I had read were a different color.

It's clunky. Takes more clicks and more figuring out rather than less.

And one more thing.

Why does the "Joined" or "Watching" bar have to be so big and intrusive on the group home page? It's HUGE and I'm afraid to accidentally click it as I'm scrolling past.

>122 Limelite: Until tonight, I could enjoy LT using Firefox. Now the font size is so small and the horizontal column width so wide that it's like watching a tennis match trying to scan text.

Honestly, I think you're the first person to complain the text is too small. I wonder if you're viewing it at 100%. Can you post a screenshot?

I miss having my groups in links on the right hand column to easily switch between my groups. Any chance this will come back? Or maybe an optional feature that can be enabled/disabled for user preference?

Yes, that's coming back, or rather it will probably be on the left. ConceptDawg is working on it.

>122 Limelite: That is what it is like on my mobile when I have it switched to desktop view. I prefer the format of desktop view, but it isn't readable on my phone! :)

>112 timspalding: Thank you! :)

How do you add a new "Group picture" using the new interface? The old upload button for this has disappeared.
And once you have a new group picture, how do you make it appear at the top of a group front page?

>127 timspalding:

>127 timspalding:

UPDATE: I fixed my problem. Somehow your updates reset my zoom level in Firefox browser on this site to 100% from 130%. Please disregard earlier posts. Thanks.

I use Groups in the same way as >125 MrsLee:.

I use the Groups homepage to locate the group that I wish to read, then use the homepage of each group to navigate through the threads that I want to read.

When I raised in >12 -pilgrim-: that I had lost the ability to display who has last posted on a thread, and the date/time stamp of that post, the replay was that this was part of the problems you were having with this upgrade.

Things seem to have stabilised now, but the following problems tension:
1. The highlighting (emboldening) does not now change when you read a post, but only when you manually refresh the group's homepage.
2. Clicking on a thread no longer takes you to the first unread, but to the top of the page; as >125 MrsLee: says, this means that it now takes 2 clicks to read a new post instead of one.
3. The stars, date/time stamps and last poster information is still missing from mobile view.

Enabling desktop view now includes such a lot of white space that it is no longer a viable alternative on a mobile, so I can no longer regain the missing information that way.

Unless there is a page-wrapping option that I am missing?

But the ability to page wrap the desktop view of one of the things that disappeared in the previous set of upgrades.

Is this the intended final result of how the group pages are to now operate, of is this still a work in progress?

>133 -pilgrim-: I also want to go straight to the first unread again.

>127 timspalding: Great news! Thanks!

I've got pinned topics working on the dev server. Tomorrow we're be pushing a lot of new things.

For the group The Weird Tradition, the statistics page "does not exist!" when attempting via the link from the group's main page, via the link in the left nav under This Group.

https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/statistics/2865

I tried for a few other of my groups: same null result.

>137 elenchus: Fixed. Thanks.

I see that a "your group list" appears in the left-hand side column when on any given group page (has to be opened, but it's there). However, the list cuts off after ten or so entries (Book Recommendation Requests takes up three lines all on its own) in my browser, so most of my groups actually aren't visible in the list. Also, as the list isn't automatically open, it takes just as many clicks to go to the Your Groups page as it does to open the sidebar list.

Current computer is a Windows 7 machine, with Chrome Version 74.0.3729.157 (I can test on a newer machine and browser this evening)

>139 shadrach_anki: I'm having the same "Your Group List" issues in Firefox. I get 7 groups and no way to scroll down further. I assumed this was a "fix in progress" issue, but since it's been a couple of days, now, it's surely worth mentioning here.

Neither the More... or Your Group List ... links work at all on the non-English sites.

>141 anglemark: Sorry about that. These things were released before they should have been.
But things should be fixed now.

>142 conceptDawg: My Your Groups list now works perfectly on each individual Group home page. Thanks for getting that working again so fast. Cheers!!

conceptdawg has added a drop-down list of your groups on group pages

I really don't like that "starred topics" is now hidden behind the drop-down. Those threads are important, that's why I put a star on them!

>145 norabelle414: If you expand the dropdown it will remember that setting. So you can have it either way. Win, win.

I'd like to be able to view Ignored Topics within a group. I think we used to be able to do this.

I know how to find Ignored Topics from the Talk page or while viewing a thread (it's under "More" in the left nav bar). This gives me my Ignored Topics across all of Talk. It's very difficult to find the one thread I accidentally x'd into oblivion.

>147 lauralkeet: Agreed, I liked that the ignored topics just dropped down to the bottom of the Group's page

>148 norabelle414:

That would be odd. The group page lists all the topics by the criterion you specify. So a group with 1,000 topics will have 1,000 topics. I don't think we want to put them at 1,000. At the same time, inserting them at the bottom of the "page" raises some questions--how many? do the remainder go to the bottom of the next page? how many slots are taken up with ignored topics in the middle of the sort order, etc.?

>149 timspalding: The group pages no longer show ignored topics. If I go to a group such as https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/23215/75-Books-Challenge-for-2021
I only see about 60 topics, because I have ignored many many topics from that group.

Previously if I went to that group page I would see the 60 non-ignored topics first, and then the rest of the topics in red.

>150 norabelle414: Agree with this.

So, you take it upon yourself to ignore every topic ever, except the small minority you want on top?

>152 timspalding: Of course not "every topic ever."

Everyone uses LT differently, including ways to manage Talk. For large and highly active groups like the 75 Book Challenge, most people find ways to winnow down their Talk page to those with whom they share reading interests. Some use stars, others ignore topics. I prefer the latter. Sometimes I accidentally ignore a thread and need to undo that action.

Does that answer your question? I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

>152 timspalding: In that particular group and a couple other groups, yes. That way I can see only the topics I am interested in on "Groups and Posts" and not the hundreds that are too popular for me to keep up with, but if I want to see those other topics I can just check the group page.

That is the way that *I* use that group in particular, though I understand not everyone uses LT/Talk that way. Is it a dealbreaker? Not even close. But I liked the way that it worked before and I will probably have to change the way I use that group in the future. (Probably by not joining the group at all and just remembering to check in on the Group page every once in awhile to look for new topics I might want to follow.)

>152 timspalding: I agree with Laura in >153 lauralkeet:. I also ignore topics to manage my Talk page, and I too have occasionally ignored a thread by mistake and had to head to the group page to find it again. I do also use stars on topics, but only on those I want to make sure I don't lose track of, not every topic I am following.

I do ignore groups as well, to keep all their posts off my Talk page, but I often don't bother to do that right away unless the group is quite active, as ignoring a group takes multiple steps while a topic can be ignored with a single click.

Finally, I suspect I'd be somewhat less prone to use the ignore option if I could mark threads as read with a single click, without having to open them.

>153 lauralkeet:

No, but I really don't understand. You want ignored topics to—what—go beneath non-ignored ones? Because if they go beneath non-ignored ones, they will be 20 pages in for all but the lowest-volume groups. What sorting principle do you propose, if not that?

>156 timspalding: In the old design, ignored topics were listed beneath the non-ignored ones. And not just on the Talk page, but when looking at Talk topics within a group. The latter is now missing.

Scrolling through pages, even within a single group, can be onerous but it's far better than doing so across all of my Groups and Posts. I'm open to ideas that would improve on the old design.

I've looked at my Ignored Topics and tried sorting on Group-Topic, but I have pages of 75 Book Challenge threads so it will take several "next" clicks to get to any other group I'm in. I think I'm looking more for a segmentation than a sort order i.e., if Ignored Topics could be segmented by group, such that I could navigate directly to the ignored topics for that group.

Meanwhile, I thought my use of stars aligned more with what was "intended", but even that has been broken in the new Talk. What's the benefit of putting the star way off to the left, away from any other useful information?

In the old groups ignored topics were sorted after the unignored topics. At least that's how I remember it.

>147 lauralkeet: - >157 lauralkeet: Like lauralkeet, I "ignore" old threads in a group. For example, in some groups members will create a personal thread for each year, and as Laura notes some of us manage that accumulating list by "ignoring" threads and letting them (at least in the past) to drop to the bottom. Thing is, occasionally we might accidentally "ignore" a thread (hitting the x on the wrong line). We then would have to scroll through all the old threads, to get to the threads that are ignored and "un-x" it so it resume its place with the active not ignored threads.

I recently ignored a person's thread accidentally and, in the new format, I can see no way to retrieve it.

I found a group without an administrator, and I'd like to apply. The problem is that when I click on the "Find out more about the powers and duties of group administrators" link, I'm just taken back to the main page of the group.

There is nothing there that lists the powers and duties of group administrators. I have experience as a moderator and admin from various forums, but not everyone does.

I tried more than one browser in case it was a browser-specific problem, but it doesn't appear to be.

Is this a glitch, or am I just looking in the wrong place?

>161 Klea: Yes, it's a bug. It has been reported.

>156 timspalding: You want ignored topics to—what—go beneath non-ignored ones? Because if they go beneath non-ignored ones, they will be 20 pages in for all but the lowest-volume groups.

Good point, Tim. I'm a member of a small, low-volume group that was created in 2007. I just went to the group page and tried to find the group's ignored topics by repeatedly clicking "next". 10 clicks in and I still wasn't there. So just placing them beneath non-ignored topics doesn't help.

I used to be able to get to this group's ignored topics more quickly by paging through topics, but I have no idea what was happening behind the scenes in terms of sort order, etc.

>157 lauralkeet: Since sort order alone doesn't solve the problem, I think being able to segment or filter the "Ignored Topics" view would be useful.

----

Related issue: after repeatedly clicking "next" you can't navigate directly back to the first page of topics. Would it be possible to have the choice of next, prev, or a series of page numbers so you could quickly jump backwards or forwards?

>158 _Zoe_: I agree with this wholeheartedly!

>10 thornton37814: >158 _Zoe_: As someone relatively new to using Talk, I like having the stars on the left because I can scan down the left-hand side and see the posts I've starred. But, I'd love to understand how it helped to have the star over near the new/total and last messages areas. Can you talk me through that?

>165 megbmore: Basically my decision on whether to read a thread is based on two things: whether I'm interested in the thread (star + subject line), but also how many unread messages there are. If there's only one new message, I probably won't bother yet, especially in more "chatty" groups like the 75 Books Challenge. Similarly, if there are 150 new messages, I might wait until I have more time.

When the star and number of unread messages were together, it was easier to scan down one line to pick out threads to read. Now we have to look side to side at multiple places.

>165 megbmore: On my phone, I can't see the stars, nor can I see who last posted in the thread. It is cut off. If that is a setting on my phone, someone help, please! But it wasn't that way until the redesign. I us a Samsung with Google.

The star is missing entirely when using a phone. It's just one character, can't you just stick immediately to the left of the topic title?

Just wondering if the group links section we discussed way back in >6 drneutron: and >7 timspalding: is on the to-be-implemented list. I’d love for this happen.

>166 _Zoe_: Thank you! That is helpful information for me.

By popular demand, alphabetization on the Your Groups page now goes down one column and then to the next column, as opposed to horizontal. Thanks to conceptDawg for making this work.

>171 megbmore: Mine's not sorting in any sort of alphabetical order.

>172 amanda4242: You are showing the Groups Home page. The Your Groups page lets you choose to sort your groups alphabetically or by activity. That's where the change was made. To see it, click on Your Groups in the left side menu.

>173 megbmore: Ah, okay. Although why isn't there an ability to sort the Groups home page?

The Groups home page listing is sorted by a secret sauce of activity and sparkly bits.

>175 conceptDawg: Must be the sparkly bits making last year's 75 Books Challenge appear above this year's.

Actually, the Your Groups part of the Groups Home page should be sorted alphabetically vertically now (lots of things with groups are changing, quickly).

>177 conceptDawg: Yep, the alphabetical sort is correct. The Groups home page and activity sorting in Your Groups are putting last year's 75 Books Challenge above this year's, but the alphabetical sort does work just fine!

Ok. If you see problems I blame it on Tim. If you see things you like it's my fault.

Just a little thing:

When a group description is long, the line before the break fades out, which indicates that there is more description to be seen and you should click "see more"


However, after you click "see more", the last line of the full description field is still faded out. I think it should be solid, to show that that's the full description

>167 MrsLee: Try turning the phone for landscape view. That lets me see who posted last, but not starred threads.

Correction: it does show stars now AND the x-out option. Thanks for giving that function back!

>181 2wonderY: Yes. Stars have been added back to the mobile version of the main Talk listing.

Also, another easter egg in the Talk listing for all formats. We'll see who notices first. :)

Also, the "Starred Topics" has been moved from "More" back up to the main navigation section, while "Groups you Admin" has been moved into More, essentially swapping places.

>179 conceptDawg: bwahaha!

I see Starred is back in the main list on the left. Someone's been busy today...

conceptDawg (#182):

Also, another easter egg in the Talk listing for all formats. We'll see who notices first. :)

The clickable group name? Or is that old and I just don't pay close enough attention?

>182 conceptDawg: Also, another easter egg in the Talk listing for all formats. We'll see who notices first. :)

Is it the link to the group's home page when you click on the group name in talk?

>184 lorax: Oooh, shiny! I never noticed that until you posted so I don't think it's been discussed before.

>182 conceptDawg: Also, the "Starred Topics" has been moved from "More" back up to the main navigation section, while "Groups you Admin" has been moved into More, essentially swapping places.

Thank you!!!

>184 lorax: Wins the day!

Sweet!

I stumbled on the "clickable group name" by accident. When I'm looking I just get the mouse more or less in the right place and let it rip. What a surprise when the topic showed up with starred items below. Took me a few clicks and I figured it out.

>188 conceptDawg: Good thing the "Easter Egg" is hard boiled or I would have had a real mess when I wacked it the first time(sic).

Thank you for making Name That Book an official site group!

Now can it get added to this list? (I did notice that you changed this field to no longer default to "Book Talk" and that is appreciated too and I think has made a big difference)

>147 lauralkeet: through >163 lauralkeet: Discussion of Ignored Topics

Bump. Is this being addressed or are there plans to do so?
Thanks.

I have to say that IMO Groups have only been changed for the worse. We only lost capabilities. Maybe the mobile users are now happier, don't know.

For example, I just realised we don't get to see anymore who of our contacts are also present in a group. This was interesting; also interesting was being able to see more than just a few members listed.

When I start typing in the "Add a message" text box the "Post message" is half hidden. It works, but the words are covered up.

Android phone, MotoG7.

Groups seem to have reverted to Old Style???

>194 fuzzi: Partly hidden button
Yes. This is a known problem but we just can't duplicate it on any of our machines, phone, tablets, or simulators. We're still on it though.

>191 norabelle414: I'll see what I can do to get that added to the list.

(the group descriptions & contacts are baaack! yay! THANK YOU)

Where do the ignored topics go?

Same place a lap goes when you stand up.

>198 dianeham: They show up only in your Ignored Topics area (shown under "More" on the Talk sidebar). We are in active discussions about the idea of Ignored Topics so this may change. Mostly it is a case of "we designed and envisioned the feature one way and members have actually been using it in a slightly different way than we thought."

>200 conceptDawg: I think having the ignored topics in their own bucket is much better than the previous method of having them sorted to the bottom of the topic list.

>200 conceptDawg: Chris, thanks for the update on Ignored Topics.

>202 lauralkeet: Yep. I can't promise anything is going to change from our current design/thoughts but we ARE discussing it. And we certainly keep any feedback in mind.

I know that sometimes we make changes and it seems like we do them with no regard to members' thoughts but that is as far from the truth as possible. We agonize over every small change. Sometimes we think we're doing it right and we get it all wrong. Other times—occasionally—we hit it out of the park, but that rarely happens on our first time up to bat. The way people use LT is just so varied we aren't going to make it perfect for everybody all of the time. But we believe in iteration, so we keep trying.

>200 conceptDawg: Thank you

>19 SandraArdnas: "the default view makes me seriously apprehensive about upcoming changes to more complex, info-packed parts of the site"

I agree. I've been apprehensive about the coming changes in LT 2.0 for a while now.

Why do some of my groups not show up in my group list? (The answer may be that they are dormant; however, they appeared before the redesign.) I used these regularly to go back and see what I'd read in a specific year. Now I have to go back in the "started by you" section to find them. Is there some way we can get these back?

>206 thornton37814: Your groups are probably set to filter for active groups. There's a button to switch that on the right side of the Your Groups page.

ETA: I just realized you might mean the the drop-down list on the left side of the page. If so, then I have no idea why some might be missing.

>206 thornton37814: Groups that were dormant for years were archived. I've lost track during the Groups redesign of what that means; possibly, archived groups are hidden except to a site search.

>206 thornton37814: Give me an example. It might be dormant groups.

>206 thornton37814: - Me too. My "2014 Category Challenge" is there, but 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 are not.

There are a few more that are not there, but that was the easiest to explain.

>206 thornton37814: I just compared my group memberships listed on my profile page to those listed on the Groups page. All of the ones that don't show up on Groups are dormant. For example, with the yearly 75 Books Challenge groups, 2015 and older are dormant, and do not appear on my Groups page. The 2016 - 2021 groups are not dormant, and are visible.

>211 lauralkeet: - That makes sense, but I guess the 2014 Category Challenge isn't dormant because people posted to it in 2020.

To get all your groups in on the left, go to

https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/yourgroups

And choose "All" in Active | All on the right of your groups list.

From then on, all your groups will show up.

>214 timspalding: Well ...



Thanks!

>209 timspalding: 1010 Category Challenge, 11 in 11 Challenge, 12 in 12 Challenge, 2013 Category Challenge, 2015 Category Challenge (2014 is there), 2016 Category Challenge, 2017 Category Challenge, 2018 Category Challenge (2019 to present are there), 75 Books Challenge for 2013, 75 Books Challenge for 2014, 75 Books Challenge for 2015 (oddly enough 2011 and 2012 are there as are 2016 to present)

I preferred it when ALL of these showed.

>216 thornton37814: Did you do what was in >214 timspalding:?

>217 timspalding: Yes

RE: Ignored Topics:

In groups, I like to keep my screen view to a manageable size of those topics in which I’m currently interested. So I red-x topics a lot. (Or what used to be red-x; I see its black now.) Though I don’t want them in my way, I frequently refer back to some of those topics. Now they’re gone. The only way I’ve discovered to find a topic again is if I happen to remember the correct word or phrase to “search topics” with. I do not want to search. I want to browse through that list.

Is there any way to get them back to where they belong?

When I click on More in the left column of THIS page of just one topic, it takes me to ALL my Ignored Topics in ALL my groups! Not at all what I want.

When I click on More in the left column of the main page of a Group, Ignored Topics is not there at all. This would be where I would expect to find the Ignored Topics for that particular group.

This is not a helpful change.

>220 countrylife: I am completely with you on this. Thanks for raising the issue again.

>220 countrylife: I think it makes more sense to access ignored topics through a separate link rather than sorting them to the end of the topic list for a group. But I agree that they shouldn't all be lumped together so there should be some option to divide them by group.

We used to have both possibilities.

>200 conceptDawg: So many changes went through in the redesign that are making things more difficult to administer a group, but I've tried not to let it get me, however, today I needed to find an ignored topic in a group that I manage and when I went to the bottom of the group page no ignored topics were there. I went to the wiki help and it said that they were supposed to be at the bottom, refreshed not there. logged out, logged back in, still that there. created a thread in the bugs, but I'm being told it's not a bug.

I can't find the thread I need to see as the group Administrator because the threads are not at the bottom. I've tried looking in Talk at the more ignored topics but there are hundreds because of all the past groups from the last 8 years.

You took away the ability when I go to a thread to stay at the top, I live with that, don't like it, but live with. I'm not sure that I can deal with the ignored topics being taken out of the group or not being able to sort by group in the Talk ignored topics.

Could you give us one or the other, please?

Can someone please help me?

>220 countrylife: Agreed!! As a group administrator I ignore some threads that I know will be unnecessary for me to monitor but today I needed to check one and can't get to it.

Definitely doesn't work for me as an administrator.

>224 cyderry:
To be honest, I'm not sure I think it's a good idea for members to be able to ignore threads in a group for which they are an administrator.

>226 spiphany:

I agree, but it may be that threads were ignored before we had administrators, or before the member became the administrator.

>226 spiphany: I have been the administrator of the group since 2014 and have managed well with being able to see the threads that I ignored when I needed. Since there is no way to just mark a thread as read without opening it, time is managed better by just ignoring the thread.