"Chats"


 

Dennis can I suggest these be disabled as they aren't part of the main email
stream.

David


Roy Thistle
 

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:56 AM, David C. Partridge wrote:


Dennis can I suggest the[se] [chats] be disabled.
Well since Dennis is the moderator, it's his decision.
I suggest, however, that the proposal for chats being "disabled" should be discussed. (Should part of the messaging system, be taken away?)
Also, there are now at least two threads about "chats."
12:56am #182782 (this thread), and
May 4 #182290
which suggests, to me, "threads" can be as confusing as "chats."




--
Roy Thistle


dave G8SFU
 

I would also like to ask the moderator to disable the chat facility. If a discussion needs to go out of mainstream it can go to pm.

As an aside one of my worries is that the archives are being filled with photos " this is my problem" instead of "this is how I cured it". Maybe there is still plenty of storage available?

Dave g8sfu

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On 19 May 2021, 14:57, at 14:57, Roy Thistle <roy.thistle@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:56 AM, David C. Partridge wrote:


Dennis can I suggest the[se] [chats] be disabled.
Well since Dennis is the moderator, it's his decision.
I suggest, however, that the proposal for chats being "disabled" should
be discussed. (Should part of the messaging system, be taken away?)
Also, there are now at least two threads about "chats."
12:56am #182782 (this thread), and
May 4 #182290
which suggests, to me, "threads" can be as confusing as "chats."




--
Roy Thistle



Vintage Test
 

Hi All,

I agree with David: I don’t see the point in another line of conversation. What would be the purpose of having a ‘chat’, as opposed to simply posting here? Could I propose, if Dennis agrees, having a vote?

Kind regards,
Mel

--
you can never have enough oscilloscopes, DMMs, valve testers or soldering irons . . .


Stephen Hanselman
 

Dave,
To a certain extent I understand where you are coming from. BUT, the purpose of this list, IMHO, is to help those who have less experience with working on this fairly complex equipment. As such we have to accept the “this is my problem” questions.

Regards,

Stephen Hanselman
Datagate Systems, LLC

On May 20, 2021, at 01:57, dave G8SFU via groups.io <djk302=zoho.com@groups.io> wrote:

I would also like to ask the moderator to disable the chat facility. If a discussion needs to go out of mainstream it can go to pm.

As an aside one of my worries is that the archives are being filled with photos " this is my problem" instead of "this is how I cured it". Maybe there is still plenty of storage available?

Dave g8sfu

⁣Sent from BlueMail ​

On 19 May 2021, 14:57, at 14:57, Roy Thistle <roy.thistle@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:56 AM, David C. Partridge wrote:


Dennis can I suggest the[se] [chats] be disabled.
Well since Dennis is the moderator, it's his decision.
I suggest, however, that the proposal for chats being "disabled" should
be discussed. (Should part of the messaging system, be taken away?)
Also, there are now at least two threads about "chats."
12:56am #182782 (this thread), and
May 4 #182290
which suggests, to me, "threads" can be as confusing as "chats."




--
Roy Thistle






Roy Thistle
 

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 02:09 AM, Vintage Test wrote:


What would be the purpose of having a ‘chat’, as opposed to simply posting
here?
Well... there are at least a couple of reasons. I'll call them good: Dennis is the arbiter.
AFAIK the Group is paying for this feature; whether it is of benefit or not. Do you want less for your money? (If the answer is yes, there are lots of people interested.)
It used to be...who needs e-mail?... when you've got snail-mail. (And that started with who needs a postal system, when you can scrawl your messages on a rock, along the beaten path.) "Chats" AFAICT are like "rag chew" vs. NTS. They provide a "space" on groups.io, in the TekScopes forum where a "conversation" can be done as naturally as possible.
"[S]imply posting here..." is not the same thing. (Is elaboration needed?)
If you're starting a "chat", I reckon you ought to be on-line, and monitoring the chat, to see if anyone wants to join in.
I know (or I think I know) we're all use to throwing stuff out there to see what sticks to the "wall", and then waiting (sometimes a day or more... particularly if you get digests) to check; but, I'd doesn't have to work that way.
And finally, for those whose blood pressure is now going past 181/81 mm Hg... because of this post... don't worry about it. Turn on your favourite Tek scope, and enjoy!
--
Roy Thistle


n4buq
 

I probably won't use the functionality but, I might.

I think that turning off a feature, particularly if it isn't costing extra, because not enough good points about it are evident doesn't make as much sense as turning off a feature because there are definite negatives about it.

It's also possible that chats might prevent some of the OT discussions (of which I'm as guilty as anyone) from invading the list's email.

Thanks,
Barry - N4BUQ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Thistle" <roy.thistle@mail.utoronto.ca>
To: TekScopes@groups.io
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 10:37:06 AM
Subject: Re: [TekScopes] "Chats"

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 02:09 AM, Vintage Test wrote:


What would be the purpose of having a ‘chat’, as opposed to simply posting
here?
Well... there are at least a couple of reasons. I'll call them good: Dennis
is the arbiter.
AFAIK the Group is paying for this feature; whether it is of benefit or not.
Do you want less for your money? (If the answer is yes, there are lots of
people interested.)
It used to be...who needs e-mail?... when you've got snail-mail. (And that
started with who needs a postal system, when you can scrawl your messages on
a rock, along the beaten path.) "Chats" AFAICT are like "rag chew" vs. NTS.
They provide a "space" on groups.io, in the TekScopes forum where a
"conversation" can be done as naturally as possible.
"[S]imply posting here..." is not the same thing. (Is elaboration needed?)
If you're starting a "chat", I reckon you ought to be on-line, and monitoring
the chat, to see if anyone wants to join in.
I know (or I think I know) we're all use to throwing stuff out there to see
what sticks to the "wall", and then waiting (sometimes a day or more...
particularly if you get digests) to check; but, I'd doesn't have to work
that way.
And finally, for those whose blood pressure is now going past 181/81 mm Hg...
because of this post... don't worry about it. Turn on your favourite Tek
scope, and enjoy!
--
Roy Thistle






Roy Thistle
 

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:57 AM, dave G8SFU wrote:


...disable the chat facility. If a discussion needs to go out of mainstream it can go to pm.
I reckon, Chats ought not to be a place to start a discussion about the culinary advantages of rutabagas versus turnips. Rather is would be about "tekscopes" which is mainstream on TekScopes ... I reckon.

--
Roy Thistle


Liam Perkins
 

FWIW: I'm in with #chats being disabled

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:46 AM Roy Thistle <roy.thistle@mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:57 AM, dave G8SFU wrote:


...disable the chat facility. If a discussion needs to go out of
mainstream it can go to pm.

I reckon, Chats ought not to be a place to start a discussion about the
culinary advantages of rutabagas versus turnips. Rather is would be about
"tekscopes" which is mainstream on TekScopes ... I reckon.

--
Roy Thistle






Vince Vielhaber
 

On 05/20/2021 11:46 AM, Roy Thistle wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:57 AM, dave G8SFU wrote:


...disable the chat facility. If a discussion needs to go out of mainstream it can go to pm.
I reckon, Chats ought not to be a place to start a discussion about the culinary advantages of rutabagas versus turnips. Rather is would be about "tekscopes" which is mainstream on TekScopes ... I reckon.
The big problem I'm seeing with chats is that they're not searchable. Never mind the fact that you have to join them to see what's going on. If someone has a problem and it gets solved in the chat, how will anyone else be able to find it?

Seems to me Chats should be left for threads that get so off topic that they don't belong on the list and whoever wants to continue the conversation can move/join it there.

Vince.
--
K8ZW http://www.metalworkingfun.com http://www.hamradio.fun


Roy Thistle
 

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:31 AM, Vince Vielhaber wrote:


chats is that they're not searchable
Search worked for:
Question: Understanding a scope probe
2430A scope problem
using the groups.io search engine, and were also indexed on Google.

Some of the older chats did not turn up with the Groups.io search... or Google... so groups.io may have just started indexing them. (Or the indexing may be something you get when you pay for a groups.io subscription.)
I was able to join some of the oldest chats on TekScopes... so they are still active. That means they are indexed somehow on groups.io.
--
Roy Thistle


pdxareaid
 

I think it is valuable to keep in mind that not all groups.io groups use the facilites in the same way.
In some groups, chats might be the appropriate place for individual help that we frequently
encourage in the main forum. A segregated chats section is appropriately provided there.

The way we use groups.io, we would wind up having 2 places to follow what should be contained in one place.
I even find OT to be a valuable learning diversion and prefer it to be amongst the various help threads.
I don't see the purpose of splitting something off to chats and then having to police its proper use, which
will inevitably be violated.
Having one place to post seems the best option for the intent of the this group. It is not broken.
Disabling chats would prevent its misuse, I think.


 

So where do you go if you just want to find out how everyone's day has been?

We're not robots after all. Some human connection would be nice.

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:44 PM pdxareaid <public_email2@frontier.com> wrote:

I think it is valuable to keep in mind that not all groups.io groups use the facilites in the same way.
In some groups, chats might be the appropriate place for individual help that we frequently
encourage in the main forum. A segregated chats section is appropriately provided there.

The way we use groups.io, we would wind up having 2 places to follow what should be contained in one place.
I even find OT to be a valuable learning diversion and prefer it to be amongst the various help threads.
I don't see the purpose of splitting something off to chats and then having to police its proper use, which
will inevitably be violated.
Having one place to post seems the best option for the intent of the this group. It is not broken.
Disabling chats would prevent its misuse, I think.





pdxareaid
 

PM is available.
I see quite a bit of humanity in the posts already.
My concern is that technically valuable info will migrate to chats and be harder to come by.
But i will be fine with whatever Dennis decides.
BTW: groups.io is really deficient compared to other forums that segregate topics and have stickies etc.
I think the switch from yahoo to groups.io was to allow the email option for those that use it (i don't) and mimic the simplicity
of yahoo groups, which many members seem to like. Chats will begin to diverge from that model.


Vince Vielhaber
 

On 05/20/2021 02:28 PM, Roy Thistle wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:31 AM, Vince Vielhaber wrote:


chats is that they're not searchable
Search worked for:
Question: Understanding a scope probe
2430A scope problem
using the groups.io search engine, and were also indexed on Google.

Some of the older chats did not turn up with the Groups.io search... or Google... so groups.io may have just started indexing them. (Or the indexing may be something you get when you pay for a groups.io subscription.)
I was able to join some of the oldest chats on TekScopes... so they are still active. That means they are indexed somehow on groups.io.
Ok, JOIN one of the chats and search for something from within it. It's the contents that aren't searchable, I thought what I meant was a given, guess not.

Vince.
--
K8ZW http://www.metalworkingfun.com http://www.hamradio.fun


stevenhorii
 

My experience with chats has primarily been on Zoom, Teams, or BlueJeans -
all of which we (for work, mostly) have used because of COVID-19
restrictions on meeting in person. This way, someone can post questions or
comments during the virtual meeting without interrupting the meeting leader
or the whole group. The chats can usually be directed to one or more
participants or the whole group. An example is a virtual presentation.
Using chat, someone could direct a question to the presenter, like “Could
you clarify what the acronym you used means?”

Also, chats tend to be more “synchronous” than email. It is why some
customer support services use it - you will “chat” with an “expert” who can
help you. I must say that this has not always been that helpful for me, but
that’s not because of the chat feature, it’s because the “expert” really is
not such an expert.

For a group like this, it could mean assistance in near real time - someone
with a scope on the bench might ask to chat with a responder to an email
topic while doing some troubleshooting. The “I’ve got no signal at C15, any
suggestions?” sort of thing with a potential response of “check the emitter
side of Q21” nearly immediately or usually faster than putting aside the
work and waiting for an email reply. To make the use of the chat feature
like this would require some protocol so users of the feature are not
inconvenienced (though not responding to a chat usually means the person
you asked to chat with is busy). Or use the email to set up a chat session.

If anyone from this group has used the chat feature like this, it would be
useful to learn about it and whether or not it was helpful.

Steve H.

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 03:56 David C. Partridge <
david.partridge@perdrix.co.uk> wrote:

Dennis can I suggest these be disabled as they aren't part of the main
email
stream.

David







Vince Vielhaber
 

The only advantage I see is it keeps the topic in one place. The disadvantage to that is its contents aren't indexed in the search. The second disadvantage to that is not everyone who may have an answer will have joined the chat.

Having someone there to talk to live is a wash as many times people are on the opposite sides of the planet from each other or have opposite schedules.

If it were a company with dedicated support hours, then yeah, I see the advantage. For 8000+ people scattered around the globe, not so much.

Vince.

On 05/21/2021 10:24 AM, stevenhorii wrote:
My experience with chats has primarily been on Zoom, Teams, or BlueJeans -
all of which we (for work, mostly) have used because of COVID-19
restrictions on meeting in person. This way, someone can post questions or
comments during the virtual meeting without interrupting the meeting leader
or the whole group. The chats can usually be directed to one or more
participants or the whole group. An example is a virtual presentation.
Using chat, someone could direct a question to the presenter, like “Could
you clarify what the acronym you used means?”

Also, chats tend to be more “synchronous” than email. It is why some
customer support services use it - you will “chat” with an “expert” who can
help you. I must say that this has not always been that helpful for me, but
that’s not because of the chat feature, it’s because the “expert” really is
not such an expert.

For a group like this, it could mean assistance in near real time - someone
with a scope on the bench might ask to chat with a responder to an email
topic while doing some troubleshooting. The “I’ve got no signal at C15, any
suggestions?” sort of thing with a potential response of “check the emitter
side of Q21” nearly immediately or usually faster than putting aside the
work and waiting for an email reply. To make the use of the chat feature
like this would require some protocol so users of the feature are not
inconvenienced (though not responding to a chat usually means the person
you asked to chat with is busy). Or use the email to set up a chat session.

If anyone from this group has used the chat feature like this, it would be
useful to learn about it and whether or not it was helpful.

Steve H.

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 03:56 David C. Partridge <
david.partridge@perdrix.co.uk> wrote:

Dennis can I suggest these be disabled as they aren't part of the main
email
stream.

David









Roy Thistle
 

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:51 PM, Vince Vielhaber wrote:


Ok, JOIN one of the chats and search for something from within it. It's the
contents that aren't searchable
It's a moot point now; but, it shows that some of the claims people made about chats are misleading... or false... or ludditeistic.
I copied text from within the chats I mentioned in my OP.... and I was able to find that text, on both groups.io, and on Google too.
That I would do that is ultra-obvious, as "search" means "search on content" ... as well as "search on title."
I stand by my claim...chats as mentioned, are searchable, as describe in my OP.
As to your meaning, your're right about your former claim, and wrong about about your latter claim.
--
Roy Thistle