More access levels

We've been talking about this recently too. What seems to make sense is to allow managers to put their members into groupings with a "tag". Then, you could assign specific privileges to that tag. What do you think about that idea?

Also, I'd be curious to hear what your wish list might be for additional permission controls, or anybody else's for that matter.

tagging members will be a useful feature for me. With regards to different kinds of permissions. I reckon it would be useful to assign "advertising" privileges to specific individuals, that is, they could add simple advertisements to the right hand column.

I love tags! And Joe, especially how you're talking about applying it, would add great flexibility in how we administer the product. Much more than creating additional user categories.

I would imagine that this would enable us to keep some discussions and file folders semi-private, which for us is critical; we want to avoid creating separate groups for all of our subcommittees and executive committees. With what I think you're suggesting, we would be able to place a dozen members in the "executive committee" grouping and apply that tag to specific areas of the groupsite, such as files, file folders, discussion topics, calendar items, etc.

The more granular the better, imho, as long as it doesn't sacrifice ease of use.

Thanks!
Dennis

I like the idea of tags but wouldn't that be more complicated to implement as opposed to creating additional user categories? Unless complexity doesn't matter ;-)

jake

Well, we have some tagging infrastructure in place right now, but it's not being used inside of groupsites.

Basically, the benefit of tags is that we don't have worry about making sure that we think of all the categories that a group might want. Basically, it's a one-size fits all approach. Make whatever user categories you want, as a groupsite manager. Assign whatever privileges you want to that user categories.

Whether you call them tags or user categories, that's basically what we want to do.

We definitely like simplicity for users over complexity. We just want to strike the right balance here, so that we don't force managers to shoehorn users into groups that they don't fit into.

I need this too. For one group there are members who have "guest access" and should only be able to do limited things, and members who have "full access" and can do everything and communicate in every available manner. The purpose is to be able to serve prospects in some fashion so they become customers, and serve customers well to keep them loyal.

What I'm looking for is very similar to what Dennis requested, so I just want to add another vote for the ability to keep some discussions and file folders semi-private. Ideally I'd like to add files and have discussions that just executive committee members have visibility to. Also the ability to send out a "blast" to a select group of members.

Guys,

Here is what we are thinking of doing in the near term. Groups with 'Premium Permission Controls' turned on will be able to create 'Manager Only' file folders and discussion forums.

In the not too distant future, will expand this option to enable groups with 'Premium Permission Controls, to create 'tag' sub-groupings. Tag sub-groupings will be used by group managers to define access to discussion forums, folders, calendar events, etc. These 'tag' sub-groupings will also be used for sending email blasts only to individuals sub-grouped under the same tag (i.e., committee members).

Any thoughts?

Regards,
Clarence

I am confused with the needs and priorities. Is there a great desire for "Manager Only" files & folders?

Thanks everyone for the input on this. Our groups could use "mid-manager" privileges as well. I have to learn about tags, but it sounds like a great approach so that we can assign certain privileges to certain groups if individuals.

The first wave of this already here.

You can now make new/existing discussions and new file folders "manager only".