Due to repeated instances of advertising and screwing with the G+ Alternatives spreadsheet, it is no longer open to...
Due to repeated instances of advertising and screwing with the G+ Alternatives spreadsheet, it is no longer open to public editing. I regret the necessity, but I can't keep working to fix the apparently malicious edits that are being performed by anonymous users.
Everyone can still view the document. If you'd like to be able to edit it, please contact me. I appreciate the good work done on the document by members of this community; I'm just sorry that some anonymous bad actors ruined it for everyone.
Everyone can still view the document. If you'd like to be able to edit it, please contact me. I appreciate the good work done on the document by members of this community; I'm just sorry that some anonymous bad actors ruined it for everyone.
That’s terrible
ReplyDeleteToo bad - but there will always be someone like that, even in the best group.
ReplyDeleteThe downside of collaborative software. If you can update it, you can break it.
ReplyDeleteI think you can see who edited the spreadsheet and get their email. Then you can enter their email into Hangouts. You should get their account name and be able to search for them on the community and ban them.
ReplyDeleteThis was going to happen eventually. I'm just happy that you've gotten it to such a good state. Can you publically give people the right to make copies? (Copy Left or Creative Commons?)
ReplyDeleteIt's likely they thought they were being helpful, or advocating for a platform they found useful. But it still kind of sucks.
ReplyDeleteI did the coding/programming sheet, please allow my access.
ReplyDeletePat Kight some of them were hiding huge numbers of rows or columns. I'm not sure how that could be anything but malicious.
ReplyDeleteJohn Lewis is that possible with Google Documents?
ReplyDeleteRich Gillin gladly. I think I might need your e-mail address to do that, though.
ReplyDeletePeter Maranci on my G+ About page, click my <-----head
ReplyDeleteIt's bound to happen. The disturbing thing is if you're in a room of 50 people, it's near certain at least one is such an antisocial person.
ReplyDeleteRich Gillin Thanks. You should have received an editing invite by now.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see software license column separated from ownership column. Labeling ownership as "open source" doesn't make sense to me. For example, G+ could be open source but all the data we're entering here would still be owned by Google. Software distribution license has no bearing on data ownership.
ReplyDeleteJuha Lindfors that's a very good point! I'll do that. Just to be clear, there are now 3 people with editing privileges for the document. I would like to add back everyone who did such good work on it. Please just let me know who you are.
ReplyDeleteI'd like access to leave some occasional notes, if possible.
ReplyDeleteJuha Lindfors Gladly - but apparently I have to have your email address. You can send it to mine, if you like. Mine is my first initial and my last name (with no spaces) and it's a Gmail address.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you let it open that long. If i remember right there was a complete wipe on day two.
ReplyDeleteI too think a split in ownership of sourcecode and ownership of data might be helpful.
Peter Maranci any chance of tying that to a form for write-only general access?
ReplyDeleteMy goal is to represent much of that in #PlexodusWiki.
(Which has also seen light vandalism, but proved resilient.)
Thanks for your and others' work, that spreadsheet is a gem.
Madara Uchiha FWIW I'm entirely behind that ban proposal. John Lewis?
ReplyDeleteTo bad that the IP protocol does not include an option to punch people in the face over the Internet. I should write an RFC for that.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why I proposed to not use an open Google Sheets but a common service (maybe with a database backend), based on invites and with an upvote/downvote or points/stars for the alternatives...
ReplyDeleteThomas Christensen Interestingly the problem itself is relevant to our discussion of various formats, types of media, interactions, scalability, and the point at which the interactions become net negative rather than positive.
ReplyDeleteIt's not typical to think of a spreadsheet as a social media format, but it's undeniable that in the case presented here, it is. And that the format has limitations.
I'm thinking could maybe use AlternativesTo? It's made for this - people can "like" proposed alternatives and also up/downvote.
ReplyDeleteThere's already a list for Google+
alternativeto.net - Google Plus Alternatives and Similar Software - AlternativeTo.net
Edward Morbius I wasn't referring to Google Sheets as an alternative to Google+ - I was referring to it as not being fit as a tool for decision making, because even though most people here have a genuine interest in using it the right way it's just too easy to corrupt it for trolls, bots and generally ill-willed individuals, who unfortunately also inhabit social services.
ReplyDeleteRich Gillin Was the coding sheet tab destroyed ? There is not much in it now.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is that the underlying protocols like ActivityPub cover all the aspect which google+ has but e.g. Mastodon was never "meant" as a g+ alternative and so only implements a subset of the "g+ possibilities" - also Peter Maranci wondering why SOLID is empty. SOLID is more a server where you can store the data from all the networks. Because it is "Linked Data" anybody can store it as a "Fact", for example "Sebastian" "likes" "spreadsheet of Peter w. id ...." and you could specify why and where...
So a seperation of Servers/Protocols vs. Services/Apps might make sense. So SOLID might go to the coding sheet although MeWee will implement it in the future.
I wouldn't mind edit access, but don't necessarily need it.
ReplyDeleteWe need a row for forum software (Drupal, phpBB, vBulletin)
Thomas Christensen And I'm not saying that Google Docs are a replacement for G+ either.
ReplyDeleteOnly that they are a form of social and collaborative media. With some fairly stark empirical limits to the scope of collaboration possible.
The fact that the sheet as a whole is editable but without clear indication of what's changed or by whom is one of those problems.
Contrast this forum, or others on G+: it's possible for thousands of registered users (and likely a fair number more) to participate here, and up to 100s of thousands elsewhere on G+, millions in Reddit forums, and, with reasonably modest moderation oversight things stay fairly much in hand.
Part of that reason is that any given interaction can (generally) only add to the discussion. (Certain participants, including moderators and the author of a given post, can delete some content.) Contributions (posts, comments) are intact units.
Wiki, which I've been engaged with over the past couple of weeks, is closer to the spreadsheet in the degree to which any content is editable, but the tracking and overview tools are hugely more useful. There's an atomic-level view on any one change, and it's possible to revert changes, or (with sufficient admin permissions) a user's entire set of "contributions". So damage is minimised.
(It's still possible, and can be a pain in the ass, but it's expensive to launch an effective attack on a Wiki.)
Unmoderated space creates problems. I've been discussing the vast swathes of wasteland in Usenet, now reflected through much of Google Communities (which I've been traipsing through over the past few days). But unmoderatable space produces unmoderated spaces, and beyond a fairly cohesive work-team (formal or otherwise), Google Docs fall prey to that problem.
Git and its spawn, GitHub and GitLab, etc., provide granular accountablity and discretion over acceptance or refusal of contributions, another useful feature. These create new attack vectors of takeover of a project leader / admin's credentials to introduce changes surreptitiously, but again: that's a relatively expensive (though not unseen) attack.
I'm casting a rather broad scope over the domain, and considering dynamics and consequences widely. Don't be excessively literal.
Julian Bond I'd be glad to give you access, but I'll need your email address. You can send it to mine, if you like; it's a Gmail address, and it's my first initial and last name with no space between them.
ReplyDeleteOK, seems like lesson learned and a solution rendered. (don't allow general public editing).
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, in addition to software type, I'm also thinking of adding funding methodology. Any other fields I should add?
ReplyDeletePeter Maranci Type or focus of the service, i.e., microblogging, general, image sharing, etc.
ReplyDeletePeter Maranci A few thoughts on that, was hoping you wouldn't ask ;-)
ReplyDeleteFunding/business model: Corporate / private / NGO / patronage / volunteer.
Codebase: Proprietary / Free Software / Hybrid (e.g., "open core").
Distinguishing project from instance, as with Diaspora / Pluspora.
Self-Hostable: (Y/N) (OK, this is covered "Can run your own".
Something along the lines of "format" or "type" where these follow the #PlexodusWiki classifications: chat, mail, group chat, microblog, blog, social, wiki, media-oriented (e.g., photos, audio, video, multi), wiki, project (as with GitHub / GitLab), and "it's complicated" for anything that doesn't fit.
Dividing the spreadsheet by these classifications might simplify things a bit.
(Looking through the list, this is already pretty comprehensive.)
There's a breakout for different policies which might better be captured as "policies" for things such as:
* Real Names
* Pseudonymity
* Anonymity
* Free Speech
* Hate Speech (prohibited/allowed)
* Commercial/Noncommercial use (doesn't generally apply, but...)
* Nudity
* Sexual content (beyond nudity)
* Gore
* Child friendly
* Religious restrictions
That might save a few columns.
"Fediverse" as a category is a bit problematic. For federated systems, naming the interoperating federations might be better. ( There are several. Descriptions ... vary somewhat. Sean Tilly has an excellent Medium article, stashed currently under "Loose Ends" in the wiki.)
Founding / establishment / release date would be a useful bit of information.
Maturity level also. There are several classification schemes at Wikipedia. Pick one and stick to it ;-) Barring that, "proposed, alpha, beta, released, established (>5 years), mature (>10 years) and venerable (>20 years)" might be a rough classification. Something along those lines.
"Ease of use" as a binary is ... a bit odd. A "high, medium, low" might be better suited.
User population Don't tell me how ugly and squishy these numbers get, I know. Nearest 10^3 might be sufficient: <10^3, 10^3, 10^6, 10^9+
Negligible, small, medium, large.
(I'm wrestling with how to manage a similar presentation on #PlexodusWiki. It's hard. None of this is criticism at all, y'all done damned fine here.)
Edward Morbius I was thinking of setting up a form, but it would probably be a good idea to have any input from the forms going to a new spreadsheet. Then I could populate data from the old spreadsheet into the form spreadsheet.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I suspect that there would be a hell of a lot of duplicate entries. I'm not sure what to do about that.
The other thing is that it would probably be a good idea to set up a simplified and rationalized set of fields for form input, as you mentioned here recently. Right now there are a hell of a lot of fields, and some confusion as to what some of them mean. I don't think I'm qualified to determine what the ideal fields would be by myself, to tell you the truth.
Peter Maranci My thinking on the spreadsheet is that it's not authoritative but illuminative. Might ask Trey Harris what his intent was, but I'm leaning toward:
ReplyDelete* You don't know what you need to capture until after you've started capturing some of it. I've watched the spreadsheet develop from a draft idea to what it is now, and ... there's been evolution.
* I'm continuing to work on that (Maranci's seen my latest Wiki edits, a time-specific snapshot is linked below with a bunch of Features added, I'm still sorting how to work with those), and will probably go through a bunch more iterations before I settle on something.
* Trey's original classification of G+ features was even more extensive. Part of the problem is in mapping from one site's terminology and featureset to another's I'm trying to be general-but-useful with terms.
* The table I'm building will be fit for a king and a very large banquet. I've got to sort out how to get that into a rather smaller hall.
* I think we'll end up re-verifying a lot of the information regardless, though with a few hands. There are ~35 platforms presently listed. With some rationalisation, even if that expands the set should be manageable.
I'm about done for the day, I'll sleep on this.
https://social.antefriguserat.de/index.php?title=Platforms_and_Sites&oldid=425?x
social.antefriguserat.de - Platforms and Sites - PlexodusWiki
Oh boy. From under which rock did you crawl out recently?
ReplyDeleteMatthias Welwarsky ???
ReplyDeletePeter, I saw an advertisement for another social media site at canund.com - Welcome : The Underground Social Network It's not on your spreadsheet and I know nothing about it. It describes itself as the Underground Social Network. Best place to make friends, create groups, Business Pages, Enjoy our Blog.
ReplyDeleteWe have no reporting system for anything and you can't be banned.
Join us today come have fun, make friends, expand your business Create clubs and groups. Only at the underground social network. It says it's free and it always will be.
It sounds like the spreadsheet is becoming quite indepth and might be overwhelming to perform a comparison of platforms. Instead of a spreadsheet, how about a query database asking up front the needs of the user (maybe like a checklist with an explanation of the items listed) and then producing a report of those platforms and their urls that meet the user's criteria in order of platforms that most meet the criteria entered.
ReplyDeleteKathie Gifford Good suggestion. We're looking at options.
ReplyDeleteKathie Gifford Interesting, there is a Google Database available. I wonder....
ReplyDeleteJohn Lewis There are ... databases.
ReplyDeleteI've been wrestling with concepts for the Wiki, which may or may not offer us what we're looking for, but is at least a collaborative scratch space. There's another thread I've started in Plexodus: The Beginning is Near, on re-thinking organising the various properties and platform/site alternatives.
Edward Morbius I think what people want is something where they can select some check boxes (feature lists?) and then get back a listing of matches... perhaps with percentages?
ReplyDeleteI guess that's what I would want from a database backend. The spreadsheet makes me do the filtering.
John Lewis Agreed. Overengineering this might make the simplification easier in the long run. And it's the way I run, also something I can do independently of others' activities, so there's that.
ReplyDeleteFitting this into the suggested Exodus Plan: collecting alternatives through the end of November / early-mid December likely makes sense, eliminating alternatives after that point is the 2nd phase. Final selections in January, commitments, etc.
So that scopes out the time for tool-building.
Kathie Gifford That's an interesting thought! But I think it might actually encourage the G+ community to split up. If possible, I'd rather use the tool to determine the best alternative to G+, and try to get as many people to end up at that service as possible.
ReplyDeletePeter Maranci My view (and John's may differ, though I suspect he's similarly pragmatic) is that the G+ membership as a whole is not in fact a single community, and there's effectively no way to coerce it to a single platform, and that even trying to do so would be at best naive and almost certainly counterproductive.
ReplyDelete(Viz: what Google did in trying to cooerce people onto G+ in the first place.)
My goal, and this is speaking for myself, though I've been acting and speaking here on this basis, is that formal and informal groups can and will make their own decisions. To the extend G+MM can help inform and guide that process, we will. I'm trying hard (and not always succeeding) to avoid making specific recommendations, though where I do, it's in generally in the realm of planning, structure, and preparation, most especially around data preservation and migration, something that matters a great deal to some ... and not at all to others.
I would like there to be clarity as to what potential options are most suitable. I'm hoping that emerges.
(I'm also aware that there are other voices who are more strident in promoting specific alternatives. I've made clear, and will continue to do so, that no one person speaks for the group as a whole or can claim collective consensus. If that gets out of hand, we'll likely deal with it. It's not been an issue to date.)
Peter Maranci
ReplyDeleteWhen I started this community it was the goal to get people, particularly leaders of the community, into a common place to have a dialogue exactly along those lines. Let's all move one place and all have an impact on how that place operates.
What I found was that the issue is much more complicated because people love Google+ for different reasons and these reasons end up pointing to different post Google+ services. There seem to be two names that keep popping up, but for simplicity sake, I'll just say that I suspect there's going to be a split and think it's in the interest of both of these groups to ensure that their new service can speak to the other in some way. The Feds seem like one option.
My conclusion is that a split is likely and we should manage with that in mind.
Sebastian Lasse that is all - simple list. the social coding has different requirements that I have not got to yet. Please help develop a separate set of headers specifically for social coding.
ReplyDeleteRich Gillin It feels a lot like duplicating information. But I will point to some major specifications then (requested access). Just saying that the IndieWeb wiki has around 10.000 pages now - see https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=site:indieweb.org&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 –
ReplyDeletein general:
just come by indieweb.org - 2019/Vlissingen - IndieWeb - one of many
https://indieweb.org/events
I think freefeed.net - FreeFeed a good alternative to G+
ReplyDeletekuchin ster Howso? What features does it offer?
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius some features of FreeFeed:
ReplyDelete» Circles — groups
» Public Posting — yes
» Anonymity — yes
» Edit Posts — yes
» Comments — yes
» "Likes" — yes
» Ease of Use — yes
» Search — yes
» Cost — free
» Mobile-friendly — yes
kuchin ster Edward Morbius
ReplyDeleteIt looks like a very clean, early version of Google+.
Do you know if they have a way to import content?
From the FAQ:
Why FreeFeed?
FreeFeed is being built as a replacement for FriendFeed, the real-time aggregator and social network where "likes" for user generated content were implemented for the first time.
After Facebook had acquired FriendFeed and announced its plan to shut down the website on April 9, 2015, a small group of Russian-speaking FriendFeed users decided to build an open-source free-for-all replacement.