Loomio

Feature update: new group privacy settings

Rob Guthrie
Rob Guthrie Public Seen by 236

Yesterday we released a whole new system for managing the privacy of your groups. Now when you start a new Loomio group, you’ll get the following options:

Open access groups
As part of this feature, we’ve released the first version of ‘open access groups’. Setting your group to ‘open’ means that any Loomio user can join in immediately, without needing an invitation or approval.

New options, new language
We’ve tried to provide a comprehensive set of options without being too confusing. What do you think? Could it be clearer? We’ve had some really great feedback from the community to get to this point – we’d love you to join the conversation if you have anything to add.

Benjamin Knight

Benjamin Knight March 20th, 2014 02:11

I like the direction this is going!

I'm unsure about some of the language - 'publicised' doesn't feel super clear to me.

Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett March 20th, 2014 03:11

I've deleted a couple of comments and updated the context so it is not confusing.

For completeness, here's how the subgroup form looks when the parent is listed.

Would love to hear from e.g. @seantilleycommunit and @alanna and @vivienmaidabornloo if these mockups feel like an improvement on the current settings?

Alanna Irving

Alanna Irving March 20th, 2014 04:00

Where are things "listed"? If I didn't know about the public groups directory, which for example a Pathways user wouldn't really be interested in, I would assume that "listed" would imply visible to people at pathways. This is going to be especially true if we have branded Loomio's - people will assume it refers to within their space.

How about the option reads "include in the public Loomio groups directory" or "Not public, membership by invitation only".

And there's another level of complexity because if I am imagining myself as a Pathways user, I might want a group that can have public to pathways users discussions as we all private group members only can see discussions. If I click "unlisted" and then create a public discussion, is that what I get?

Maybe in order to understand these options I'd need to description of what each possible combination leads to.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie March 20th, 2014 20:36

Thanks @alanna. Listed includes being indexed by search engines. It means your group is findable on the internet.

Unlisted, public discussions are essentially "anyone with link"

I might want a group that can have public to pathways users

This is different use of the term public.. which you're allowed to do, I guess.. but it sure highlights how hard this job is. In this case I think you mean:

I might want a a group that grants access to pathways users.

In which case I would suggest to you as a user, that you create a subgroup within pathways and check the "Pathways members can see private discussions" checkbox.

Jesse Doud

Jesse Doud March 20th, 2014 21:16

This is a public group. should we be discussing specific non-public groups in here? @robertguthrie @alanna

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie March 20th, 2014 21:20

@alanna before I had "Listed" there was "findable" @richarddbartlett told me that "findable" is not a word - Which seems like a mistake on behalf of Oxford.

Do you think it would be worth it to invent a new word?

Finable and Joinable
People can find your group on the internet and request to join it

Hidden and Invite only
We will hide your group from search engines and membership is by invitation only.

hidden and invite only

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie March 20th, 2014 21:21

Ignore the last line

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie March 20th, 2014 21:22

@jessedoud yep. I reckon it's ok in it's current from. Afterall we mention them on the frontpage.

Jesse Doud

Jesse Doud March 20th, 2014 21:32

I think you're right. For future engagement I think I would be more apt to jump in this discussion if it were kept a bit more in the abstract. I'm not super comfy talking about designing for a pathways user, but would be fine about talking about a business org user, or using a persona.

Sean Tilley

Sean Tilley March 21st, 2014 18:53

I feel like it would be nice to have an additional option to allow anyone to join the sub-group without the need for approval, especially if they're already a member of the parent group.

We have a lot of sub-groups in Diaspora and it gets a little tedious to have to approve everyone that wants to join in.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie March 21st, 2014 23:27

Thanks @seantilleycommunit.

@benjaminknightloom and I just had a skype about this stuff and we discovered that we're still combining two settings in one here. (The 'visibility' and how people can join) From there I realised that this 'join freely' option was not on the table and I'm going to mock it up and try to put it in.

Thanks for your input!

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie March 26th, 2014 20:51

@seantilleycommunit would you please have a look at the latest iteration and give feedback?

https://loomio.mybalsamiq.com/projects/privacy/Edit%20group%20round%20500

We now have an "Anyone can join" option .. meaning people can join freely and discussions are always public.

Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon March 26th, 2014 22:56

@seantilleycommunit there were a few things that were confusing/incorrect in the mockup above (especially the sticky notes). i've just fixed it all up though, so if you were confused before, try again and it should make sense. :)

Neil Morris

Neil Morris April 28th, 2014 19:08

I think there probably needs some further clarification on what "Anyone can see the group" means. Getting to that setting for the first time I wouldn't know what to expect.

Does it mean the group's homepage (i.e with information about the group), or is it just listed as a link in a public directory of groups, or does it mean they can see the home page with information and links to discussion.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie May 1st, 2014 02:54

Thanks for the feedback Neil.
We're talking about the group profile page and any public discussions.

Do you have any suggestions for how we might better communicate this? We're in final stages of releasing this feature now.

Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon May 2nd, 2014 02:11

@robertguthrie what do you think of something along the lines of what I've written below? And also moving the "discussion privacy" section to right underneath "finding the group" since they are both related to privacy.

Finding the group

  • Anyone can see the group (it's name and who's in it)
  • Only members can see the group.

Discussion privacy

  • Only allow public discussions (visible to anyone)
  • Allow public and private discussions
  • Only allow private discussions (visible to group members)

Too wordy?

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie May 2nd, 2014 02:16

Does not seem tooo wordy. I'm happy to use that as a starting iteration. Thanks @jonlemmon.

Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon May 2nd, 2014 02:22

@robertguthrie cool. Here's a slight tweak on the wording which I think might be easier to read?

Discussion Privacy

  • Allow public discussions only (visible to anyone)
  • Allow public and private discussions
  • Allow private discussions only (visible only to group members)
Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon May 2nd, 2014 02:23

@neilmorris how's all the above wording look to you?

Steve Coffman

Steve Coffman May 5th, 2014 16:17

@jonlemmon would it be possible to combine your suggestion with what @alanna put forward in *More indepth Sub-Group permissions * (public viewing/private voting)?
Maybe as:
Allow public discussions and private discussions/voting

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie May 5th, 2014 21:40

@stevecoffman Right now the privacy stuff is 95% done and we're working on minor language tweeks. Subgroup of voters is another iteration.

Neil Morris

Neil Morris May 6th, 2014 16:12

@jonlemmon @robertguthrie I wonder whether the public discussion option needs to be split into public discussions which are searchable in search engines and those which can be seen by members who log into the loomio installation.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie May 6th, 2014 20:31

@neilmorris - that sounds like a private discussion to me. You can have groups with public and private discussions. Or you can make a subgroup with private only discussions.

Are there any differences between what you're describing and a private discussion?

Neil Morris

Neil Morris May 6th, 2014 22:19

@robertguthrie - there is a slight difference. One is public, as in searchable on the WWW, the other would be searchable to people who log in to the Loomio website i.e semi-public but because you have to log in to the site not searchable through public search engines. This option to me is quite different from having a private discussion.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie May 6th, 2014 23:38

To me it's actually the same as a private discussion. I can't technically see the difference.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie May 6th, 2014 23:42

Hrrmm.. Sorry that seems a bit blunt. At this stage I see there is a slight difference but I think I'll run with how we have it because it's so far along and the difference is so slight, and potentially confusing or difficult to communicate to the user.

Happy to review later @ne

Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett May 26th, 2014 00:01

Hey folks what do you think of the language in this version? Is it clear? Could it be clearer?

@seantilleycommunit @joshuavial @alanna @jessedoud

Alanna Irving

Alanna Irving May 26th, 2014 00:21

Only comment would be under "How do People Join". I'd go with something like....

  • Open Group - anyone can join, no approval required
  • By Request - new members need to be approved
  • Invitation Only - new members must be invited to join
Alanna Irving

Alanna Irving May 26th, 2014 00:22

@richarddbartlett not sure how much feedback you're looking for, but if you want more I'd suggest raising a proposal like "the new groups settings language makes sense to me" - if you do that, update the context panel first.

Jesse Doud

Jesse Doud May 26th, 2014 00:24

Wow, looking great!
Thinking it would be nice to add some reassurance so users know that these options can be changed in the future. And labels and placeholders on the textareas could use a polish.
As is, to me this looks like a clear improvement.

Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett started a proposal May 26th, 2014 00:27

The language for the new group settings page makes sense to me Closed 2:09am - Thursday 29 May 2014

Outcome
by Richard D. Bartlett February 27th, 2017 22:26

Thanks for your input everyone, this update will be out soon :)

Latest version here: https://i.imgur.com/14ubHjm.png

Results
Agree - 11
Abstain - 2
Disagree - 0
Block - 0
13 people have voted (0%)
Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett started a proposal May 26th, 2014 00:27

The language for the new group settings page makes sense to me Closed 2:09am - Thursday 29 May 2014

Outcome
by Richard D. Bartlett February 27th, 2017 22:26

Thanks for your input everyone, this update will be out soon :)

Latest version here: https://i.imgur.com/14ubHjm.png

Results
Agree - 11
Abstain - 2
Disagree - 0
Block - 0
13 people have voted (0%)
Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett
Agree
May 26th, 2014 00:28

Also like Alanna's suggested changes

Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett
Agree
May 26th, 2014 00:28

Also like Alanna's suggested changes

Alanna Irving

Alanna Irving
Agree
May 26th, 2014 00:31

much better!

Alanna Irving

Alanna Irving
Agree
May 26th, 2014 00:31

much better!

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie
Agree
May 26th, 2014 01:59

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie
Agree
May 26th, 2014 01:59

Chris Taklis

Chris Taklis
Agree
May 26th, 2014 04:56

Chris Taklis

Chris Taklis
Agree
May 26th, 2014 04:56

 vivien maidaborn

vivien maidaborn
Agree
May 26th, 2014 06:20

from the pov of teaching this it is great language easy to understand

 vivien maidaborn

vivien maidaborn
Agree
May 26th, 2014 06:20

from the pov of teaching this it is great language easy to understand

Josef Davies-Coates

Josef Davies-Coates May 26th, 2014 11:47

small comment really but I just read this about where best to put placeholder text/ tips, i.e. outside of the form field:
http://goo.gl/QKt7xq

A. Renato

A. Renato
Agree
May 26th, 2014 16:08

better!

A. Renato

A. Renato
Agree
May 26th, 2014 16:08

better!

Josef Davies-Coates

Josef Davies-Coates
Abstain
May 26th, 2014 19:56

Josef Davies-Coates

Josef Davies-Coates
Abstain
May 26th, 2014 19:56

Matthew Bartlett

Matthew Bartlett
Agree
May 27th, 2014 00:25

Matthew Bartlett

Matthew Bartlett
Agree
May 27th, 2014 00:25

Josef Davies-Coates

Josef Davies-Coates May 27th, 2014 12:09

er, more cool stuff on placeholders here
http://blog.circleci.com/adaptive-placeholders/

(the guys at http://www.camplight.net/ must be into this stuff at the mo because both links are from their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/camplight )

Josef Davies-Coates

Josef Davies-Coates
Agree
May 27th, 2014 13:58

well, yes, they do make sense

Josef Davies-Coates

Josef Davies-Coates
Agree
May 27th, 2014 13:58

well, yes, they do make sense

Julian Dumitrascu

Julian Dumitrascu
Agree
May 27th, 2014 20:53

Julian Dumitrascu

Julian Dumitrascu
Agree
May 27th, 2014 20:53

Benjamin Knight

Benjamin Knight May 28th, 2014 01:17

I really like @alanna's suggestion about Open group, By request, and Invitation only - feels like a really clear articulation of the 3 options (and gives each a label to make it instantly understandable).

Also love @jessedoud 's suggestion about making it clear to people that these settings can be changed.

This is awesome work @robertguthrie , massive improvement!!

Benjamin Knight

Benjamin Knight May 28th, 2014 01:18

Plus I love hacking the proposal to engage us all in the process :)

Benjamin Knight

Benjamin Knight
Agree
May 28th, 2014 01:18

huge improvement!

Benjamin Knight

Benjamin Knight
Agree
May 28th, 2014 01:18

huge improvement!

Philippe Ponge

Philippe Ponge May 28th, 2014 03:12

It's a little bit difficult for me to answer because my english is not very good.
It'll be usefull and maybe interesting to make traductions, and to verify them if people are able and have time to do it.

Thanks for Loomio it's realy a good way for me to take decision after proposition.

Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon
Abstain
May 28th, 2014 04:34

Ambiguity: If the group is "members only" can someone with a link to it see it? If not, you may want to change the wording to "Who can see this group?" instead of "Who can find this group?".

Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon
Abstain
May 28th, 2014 04:34

Ambiguity: If the group is "members only" can someone with a link to it see it? If not, you may want to change the wording to "Who can see this group?" instead of "Who can find this group?".

Jon Lemmon

Jon Lemmon May 28th, 2014 04:37

See vote statement. Looks really good though. :)

mix irving

mix irving
Abstain
May 28th, 2014 06:00

quite good. The middle two are a little unclear perhaps. What is the diff between joining and adding ?

I think 'Adding members' means approving requests to join and sending active invites/ adding people manually?

see comments for more

mix irving

mix irving
Abstain
May 28th, 2014 06:00

quite good. The middle two are a little unclear perhaps. What is the diff between joining and adding ?

I think 'Adding members' means approving requests to join and sending active invites/ adding people manually?

see comments for more

mix irving

mix irving May 28th, 2014 06:09

here's my go :

mockup

Philippe Ponge

Philippe Ponge
Agree
May 28th, 2014 23:21

Philippe Ponge

Philippe Ponge
Agree
May 28th, 2014 23:21

Philippe Ponge

Philippe Ponge May 28th, 2014 23:31

Thanks a lot for this button Traduction
So quickly... it's help me already even if the traduction is not so good, specialy when we work on detaiIs.
Yo ;.)

Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett June 3rd, 2014 22:06

Hey folks we deployed these changes last night - have a play and let us know if you have any feedback :)

Matt H

Matt H June 6th, 2014 17:06

I think it'd be better if you could set it so only group coordinators have the option to post public posts. When you select the option for a posts privacy to be either set public or private.

Richard D. Bartlett

Richard D. Bartlett June 8th, 2014 21:46

Interesting. What do you think @robertguthrie?

Matt H

Matt H June 10th, 2014 23:30

Or at least have that as an option for more privacy concerned groups.

Rob Guthrie

Rob Guthrie June 11th, 2014 12:28

@matthewnholt that's pretty interesting. It could be added quite easily. Have a look at the group settings page today, it's changed a bit more. You could imagine having a "Start public discussions" checkbox in the "members can" section.

I wonder if you would just have a "start discussions" option. So for a particular group only admins can start discussions. Members could still start discussions in subgroups if you wanted. That seems like a slightly simpler setting - would that be satisfactory? I like it because it sits along side a "members can start proposals" setting.

@richarddbartlett