Enhance Tree Visualization of Group Heirarchy

In #1, what you expect to see isn't how I've intended it to work (so far). The subgroup doesn't know what group(s) it might be in, so it can only list itself and points below it in the tree.

In #2, that sounds like the proper expectation - what are you seeing instead?

Thanks,
Don

1) it only shows 1 level descendents. Paris is a child of France but didn't show up.

The level 2 descendents should show up when you click on the level 1 descendents - that is, Paris should only show up when you click on France. If you don't mind checking - does anything happen when you click on France?

2) more importantly, in the tree, it seems to list all members ahead of subgroups. this means with 500 members it's not practical to see the subgroups.

Right - the idea is that if you split the 500 into the subgroups, you should be able to see only a few at a time. I'm not sure how else this might work - did you have something else in mind?

Thanks!
Don

For #6, I'm sorry if any reconceptualization is necessary - I'd like the module to be more intuitive than that. Please let me know if you have any ideas that would make it more intuitive.

For #7, that's a good idea. I've just uploaded a new version that does what you suggested. It also handles permissions better.

Ah - this (#9) is something we should definitely talk about here. I'm using subgroups very differently than it's intended, and have had trouble conceiving of how it might be used by others:

On my sites, groups and subgroups aren't containers for posts - I've turned that off. I don't understand why in organic groups a group is a container of posts and also a container of members - it seems to me that it should only be the latter, and perhaps permissions and other things could be defined in terms of groups and used on posts in general.

So, as I've been implimenting subgroups, I've tried to make it so that if you're a user that is a member of the group Paris, you're also considered a member of the groups that contain it, and groups that contain them - France and Europe, in your example.

What I haven't done is dealt at all with posts. If a post is in Paris, it is only in Paris - it is not copied or linked in any way to France and Europe. I've largely ignored the post-group relationship because I don't understand how people might be using it, and because I haven't had any intention of using it myself.

In fact, the sites I'm building aren't post-oriented at all. They're mostly to organize people and people's profiles - I'm working on getting forums integrated with mailing lists in ways I haven't seen before, but even then I'm ignoring the og_forum module because I don't see why there should be a one-to-one relationship of a group and a forum. It seems to me a group is a set of people, and shouldn't be tied directly to anything else, though permissions (as in linux and most other OSes) can be defined in terms of groups.

It was a difficult decision to go with Drupal at all, as Drupal is primarily (I think) used a system for managing posts, not for organizing real life groups of people.

I'd very much appreciate thoughts on this.

Okay, so, we definitely agree that "posts and groups are integrally related."

I think the question is, how are they related? Here's what I've been thinking:

A group is defined as being either
(1) a set of (zero or more) people and (zero or more) subgroups
(2) the special group "everyone"

I actually am not using posts, just forums that are tied to mailing lists - but, post are content, and in my mind content of any type is defined as data, actions that can be performed on the data, and restrictions on who can perform these actions. Actions might include:
(1) view
(2) edit
(3) [sometimes] ability to comment on a post
etc., depending on the type of content

So, the relationship between groups and posts in my mind is:

Groups exist with no features besides those in their definition above ("everyone" or "subgroups and members")
Posts exist with content and pointers to groups that can perform various actions on the content

(fyi, I'm also excited about groups being defined across unrelated servers - so one server can define permissions in terms of subgroups that exist elsewhere)

I recognize this is not (to my understanding) quite how Drupal works in general, or how Organic Groups works in particular - but it's what i want independent of Drupal, and I came to Drupal because it seemed the closest of what open source projects I could find.

I also recognize that my system doesn't have a way of highlighting information for a particular audience - if there is a post or forum a group with which a group can do something (view, edit, etc) there's nothing built into the group that tells them it's out there- they'd have to see a link to it or discover it in some other way. But the group's definition doesn't include any mention of the groups for which it is permitted actions, any more than the individual's account does. This is consistent with and inspired by the idea of a remote server 'B' having viewable content only to a group defined on a server 'A'.

What I'm describing is notably closer in some ways to Drupal's "roles" than to Drupal's Organic Groups. In retrospect, I'm not sure if perhaps I should have extended roles somehow instead of extending groups... but I wanted groups to be viewable by users, so I was looking for a hybrid of roles and groups, with extra functionality.

This is a long post, so I'll stop here. I'd definitely appreciate any thoughts.

Thanks,
Don

Hi there,

I am experimenting with subgroups and I like it so far.

In groups view, it would be great if the (sub)groups would be represented in a hierarchical and collapsible way more clearly, e.g,

Europe (199)
...France (74)
......Paris (25)
...Netherlands (75)
......Amsterdam (25)

When I click on them, I can see the members of that particular group, or perhaps in panels like the files in Explorer.

EMAILING
When I email Europe I would like the option to send it to all its members including its subgroups, but without multiple copies for members who happen to subscribe to more than one (sub)group, e.g. Paris and Amsterdam.

I am looking forward to seeing what is coming from this post.

Kind regards,

JanPieter Hoogma.

I agree with this:

In groups view, it would be great if the (sub)groups would be represented in a hierarchical and collapsible way more clearly, e.g,

Europe (199)
...France (74)
......Paris (25)
...Netherlands (75)
......Amsterdam (25)

I have a client who expects that this is how the /og page will show. Unfortunately, it doesn't - the cities are listed alphabetically in the listing.

Anyone found an easy way to do this?

Thanks!

Og_subgroups already provides a simple hierarchical Tree representation for children of an organic group. I would welcome a patch or specific suggestions towards enhancing this feature.

I fully agree this would be a very interesting improvement.

Can you specify specifically what you'd like to see enhanced?

The suggestions made in http://drupal.org/node/83124#comment-445954

Especially the hierarchical listing in the groups view would be welcome. (Or am I mistaken and is this available in the development version?)

Thanks for the swift reply!

Please re-open this issue if you don't feel that the 5.x.4-0 version addresses your needs.