Hi David,

I am sorry for the delay of this reply.

EasySocial's page feature will be added into version 1.3. As for creating group in a page, this is something we are looking into but we will see if we have enough time slot to put this into 1.3 as well. If not, most likely will be after version 1.3.x or 1.4.

Thanks again for your feedback
Hope this help and have a nice day

Hi Sam,

Just to make sure we are both at the same wave length. What I am asking is: whenever pages comes out (no pressure whenever it does), will I be able to assign the wonder ship of an existing group to a page?

Hi Sam,

Can you please give me a quick answer as to whether a groups can be created by Pages or not? Like I said, there are groups in my site that exist and I would like, in the future, to assign them to a Page. Would that be possible?

Perhaps a "page" ought to have the option to perform similar to a group. I completely agree with the idea of having a "page" operate like a group. This way you can have an organization page not only "likable" but also have it's staff members join in. Even Facebook doesn't do this which would be a unique feature for ES.

Hello guys,

I am not really sure if Groups would be added into Pages but we're working on the basics first and once they are all out stable, we'll see what we can do from then on In terms of the code programmatically, it would definitely be possible but again, I am not sure about the logics behind this as your privacy for groups / pages might eventually lead up to a mess. Imagine if your page is set to private but your group is set to public

The theory we are trying to push out is that a "page" acts as a group. So for example if we created a "page" called StackIdeas, the staff could "join" just like groups, and have the privacy set to private if desired. Because it's not a group page, there is no need to worry about this. In other words, pages are intended to be unified rather than two separate entities (a group and page). Hope that gives you a better idea of what we are proposing.

This is one of those things that would be nice to have, but isn't critical. Things like the username space, better image standards, ect are things that are much higher on my list of things for ES.

Thanks Mark,

Josh, if you follow this link (http://stackideas.com/forums/username-cannot-have-spacing-in-them) you will find at the bottom of the discussion a file Stackideas team uploaded that solves the issue of the username spacing

Josh, I am still a little confused over Pages vs Groups here. Mind elaborating more on this please?

A page as far as I understand is a community object that represents something (a cause, an organization, someone people look up to). To build up fans and show appreciation to that page, the like button/link boosts it's fame. Also one can follow that page. With a group page this is not possible. This makes it so that you cannot have both an organization page and it's members within a single page. As a result if one wanted to have supporters (likes and followers) and show case the members of that origination they would be forced to have two pages. This makes it more difficult for the fans (viewer) to find the information page and the people behind it at the same time.

I'm proposing that "Pages" have an admin option that decides whether pages can have members join that page. This isn't just about organizations, this includes businesses, causes, bands, clubs, staffs, or even founders of an idea. This very idea of combining the two will give EasySocial a advantage over Facebook.

I'm trying to figure out the purpose for this "Pages" feature people are talking about. Why not just slap on a like button and follow functionality to groups? You can create group categories for all those causes (businesses, cause, bands, clubs, etc.) and it would be the same functionality. Employees can join closed groups. If you need to add something more specific, just create a group app for whatever you need. What am I missing here?

hey john,
thanks for your great input - in fact personally I share the same view and already brought this up to our devs as well

having that said we received lots of different ideas what pages should be / what they should do etc. and therefore I think no final decision has been made yet on how pages at the end will be introduced. but as mark said in another post today we won't see pages in the next 1.3 release so there's some time left for the final decision on this.

Alex, thanks for the update on this.

I had just started seeing posts about this newly proposed feature. I think it is important that any new feature that is introduced is heavily vetted to determine if it is necessary or if there is a way to use what is already in EasySocial. There is no sense in piling on unnecessary bloat. I'm not dissing the idea. Actually, I like the idea but seems to me it can be done with a couple options added to group pages.

I am about to invest in custom 3rd party integrations and app development and so I don't want to see ES grow outside the scope of what the large majority need from a social network software. The thing I love about the EasySocial framework is the ability to add 3rd party applications to achieve extras you need for your site's purposes. So let's keep that in mind.

It's good there is still time to decide about this proposed feature.

I think Facebook has a good explanation between the difference with their Pages and Groups.

@John, part of me wants to agree with you on the "less" factor. However clear separation between groups and pages can be very handy. For example a page displays useful information right away while a group is setup to immediately seem community like. So I thought of a great alternative:

What if a group category behaved like a "page" in the sense that the like/follow features were custom fields applies to those pages. This way we can decide if we want the page a "page", "group", or "group page". I suppose one minor issue is that making a page might be less obvious to some admins.

@MarkLee, please consider making Pages available to public even ES is set to Lockdown mode.

Having group functionality to Pages like adding member does not make sense, just use the Group instead. Like/Follow seems to be the most logical feature, please consider adding ACL to Pages like disable users comments or post, ability to post Status/Photo-Video/Event/etc that are targeted to:
[*] Followers/Liked
[*] Selected Users
[*] maybe Selected Group

Thanks for the heads up on this Jackson

Hi all,

whatever happened with the "pages"-feature? I really need this and have waited a long time for this feature. Will it ever come? If it will come, do you know when it might be a part of Easysocial?

I'm guessing either ES 1.4 or ES 1.5 for pages based on what I've heard and observed. I think videos is the next hot item ES is looking into.

Probably 1.5, on the voice request it is accepted for 1.5

Hey guys,

We're considering adding this into 1.4 but due to several delays in EasyBlog 5, we had to push this feature to 1.5 instead.

I have followed the threads and voice requests for Groups and Pages over the past year and with the release of Events for Groups in EasySocial I am now convinced the coding and UX advantages mean only one unified Group section is required, along the lines suggested by John, Josh and LAC above.

Pages are just a Group with a few different parameters/options and splitting them into 2 sections only leads to additional (unnecessary) coding and complications. There is no need to treat them as separate entities if you do not have to and the social media giants have been struggling to find ways to bring them closer together ever since they launched Pages.

At the risk of repeating the suggestions above, a group can be whatever you want it to be and by selecting a parameter you can identify (to whoever is allowed to see the Group) if it is, for example, a club, organisation, business, band, celebrity or collection of random people with a common interest.

All Groups can have a like and follow button option for no feed/feed integration as well as an admin to run it and a Public/Private/Friends option to identify who can see the group with a closed/open parameter to indicate if members are not visible/visible if Public or Friends are selected (Private always defaults to closed).

The ACL integration can add a more controlled level of access leading to paid subscriptions if required but overall with the flexibility of custom fields it is so much easier and better to keep 'Pages' within groups instead of 're-inventing the wheel' just to have a very similar section called Pages.

In summary, the suggestions made by John/Josh/LAC are very sound/practical and have my full support, let the idea of a different section for Pages disappear and include Pages as just another type of Group, achieved by selecting different parameters during set up.

It is much simpler, flexible and more user friendly.

@Richard I think you're summary/recommendation is sound. But additional efforts around access control and "Group/Page" management would really help Groups be promoted, managed, and maintained by their creators.

I'd like to see improvements to allow delegation of "Admin" capabilities so that a Group owner-creator could promote another non-Joomla-administrator user to help manage the group.

It would also be useful to support privacy settings per profile-type to provide privacy-aware, role-based access control so that the permissions given to see a user's ES Objects (i.e. Groups) could be assigned by a site member according to the site's specific roles (i.e. a "Teacher" creating an "Assessments" group could grant access to all "Teaching Assistants" but not "Students" or "Parents").

hello guys any progress about business page please?
include into 1.4.0 and when ?

thanks to all

Business pages are postponed to 1.5 instead of 1.4 1.4 will incorporate videos though.