Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
buzzed, B&W
Bleh, I need to vent . . . in the past, I've used Yahoo Groups for a lot of various working groups, social lists, etc. It's convenient, and the toolset it provides (calendar, files, database, photos, polls, etc) are very useful. The manager tolls are pretty nice too, and you can view bounce reports for the group.

Montana VISTAs use an MSN group. When I first started using it, no big deal, but the lack of features is really starting to bug me. I guess the main thing triggering this rant is for some reason, a significant number of e-mails from the group are bouncing. Yahoo is nice in that as a manager you can pull up the bounces and try and figure out why. I guess this is really just a nit-pick and a sign of a bit of frustration I'm experiencing this morning . . . since in reality a feature to track bounces isn't something that would be used by the masses.

The one huge difference between the two in my mind is that MSN threads their archives, with each message thread being more like a bulletin board, while Yahoo provides a chronological list of all messages posted. I'm leaning towards the latter since I prefer to search by poster, rather than topic.

  • 1
Heh, maybe you should switch to Google groups. I'm only on one very low traffic mailing list via Google groups, so I actually don't have a strong idea of how comprehensive the service is.

Man, I had no idea that Google Groups allowed for the creation of your own groups . . . I wonder when they moved beyond newsgroups . . .

Anyway, just created a test group, and really, it's just a listserv with a nice web interface . . . none of the advanced features that allow it to be useful to working groups. That's why I really like Yahoo's groups . . . you can keep address books in the database (and members can update their own contact information as necessary), have calenders with automatic reminders, polls to reach descisions quickly, etc . . . though I wish they'd add protected RSS for private groups . . .

  • 1