Adding groups as a social feature

would it be possible for Diaspora to adopt groups like Facebook did.following tags is a good start but having groups would helped specific interests share things in group spaces instead of one public of aspect timeline. is this possible or not really interesting for devs or the community i want to start self taught programmers group but there is no specific group interface it takes more steps and tags

There’s an existing discussion about a ‘groups’ feature: Feature Discussion: Groups

Unfortunately I can’t remember how to merge discussions; hopefully @denschub can help.

This feature is not something that anyone would oppose; however, there are more crucial things that the people who spend most time developing the software are focusing on. It’s up to community members who really want this feature to build it. So far, no one has done that.

1 Like

i can look at trying it. my friend jsut told aspects does this is this correct?

@goob i realized that i may have misinterpreted what aspects where. can aspects replaces the use f groups or are they entirely different to mimic google plus circles

was aspects created the replicate groups at basic level like ostatus

Aspects are the equivalent of Googles ‘circles’, but they don’t mimic circles because diaspora* had aspects first, and Google introduced circles a year later.

Aspects are there to aid privacy, so you can determine exactly who will be able to read and interact with each message you post. They’re not intended to replace a groups feature, but you can use them to sort of get around the lack of a groups feature: if a group of you each create an aspect and put every other member of the group into it, then when one of you posts to that ‘group’ aspect, you’ve sort of got a group. One thing, though: because of the privacy element, anyone added to the ‘group’ at a later date won’t be able to see any posts created before they joined the group.

There is full support for a groups feature ready and waiting in diaspora*'s federation protocol (the software that enables different pods to communicate with each other); it now just needs one or more members of diaspora*'s community who really want a groups feature to step forward and build it. Hopefully that will happen one day.

i can try to build it what would that entail language and software eise?

Here’s a guide to the various languages used: An introduction to the Diaspora source.

There’s a quick article about Getting started with contributing.

There’s more information in the Developers category on the project’s wiki.

Hope that helps. I’m not a coder, so wouldn’t be able to help you get started if you decide to go ahead, but there’s plenty of help available. The best way to ask for help is either in diaspora* itself, or via the project’s IRC channel.

thank you that helps alot it seems you use haml sasss and handle bars js

That’s actually not true, there is nothing done regarding groups yet. You maybe confused it with “events”, another feature some people wanted, which exists in the protocol, but nowhere else yet? Or “editing” which also is specified in the protocol already? So there are some features that exist in the protocol already, but “groups” isn’t one of it.

So groups isn’t developed yet basically. Also what was events so to sprak

Yes, groups still needs to be discussed and specified first, before it can be started to get implemented.

I was talking about this: Events and rsvp module · Issue #1359 · diaspora/diaspora · GitHub

I can get that going

Keep in mind that all of these are really big features and are probably a lot of work (even if some already have the protocol part done, there is still a lot left). I recommend starting with a few smaller things first so you can get used to the codebase and how diaspora works, before starting with something as big as the feature mentioned above. Searching for the newcomer label is probably a good way to start.

You all are way more friendly then the mastadon staff it’s a lot more comfortable I will totally advertise diaspora everywhere

Apologies; I had misremembered that groups was one of the non-existent features for which you’d provided support. Thanks for correcting me.