I use a hybrid of function/geography. For the most part it's function, but I occasionally do things such as look for someone to go eat with. The "!Austin 1" and "!Austin 2" groups work well for that. wrt ordering, I always prefix the group names with a 2 digit code. That seems to be the best protocol/client-independent way of sorting my groups. I use Miranda, but I occasionally fall back on the "official" clients.
Joshua Kaufman
· 4 years ago
I have two groups. One is "Frequent," the other is "Infrequent." So my system is almost the same as yours except I use words that make sense. ;) However, I guess when you have more than two groups, it becomes more difficult to use semantic labels. "More Infrequent" seems kind of long.
mfk
· 4 years ago
When I was on IM, I used (funny enough) an almost identical scheme, just labelled: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary. I think I was inspired by computer architecture.
For frequency based methods, I think the optimal number of tiers depends heavily on the structure of your communication space (for lack of a better term). At the time, if I grouped the contacts by frequency, it followed an exponential distribution -- as I suspect most people's communication space would. From this I could assign two thresholds, which partitioned by contact's list accordingly.
I remember briefly considering KC's additional subcategorizations, but felt it took away from the mathematical purity of the original scheme. :)
All Comments
For frequency based methods, I think the optimal number of tiers depends heavily on the structure of your communication space (for lack of a better term). At the time, if I grouped the contacts by frequency, it followed an exponential distribution -- as I suspect most people's communication space would. From this I could assign two thresholds, which partitioned by contact's list accordingly.
I remember briefly considering KC's additional subcategorizations, but felt it took away from the mathematical purity of the original scheme. :)
family
co-workers
other