Ability to hide Groups that are considered "private"
When creating groups, or after the fact with a PowerShell command, all the ability to set a hide=True attribute so that the group is not visible when viewing all. Several other elements such as distribution lists and security groups can be hidden so why not allow the ability to hide Groups. This will allow groups to exist that are truly "private". This would be very helpful for groups that need a bit more privacy in order to operate using the Groups functionality beyond the invite only capability.
Thanks for the feedback. We are considering implementation of “Secret groups” in the near future.
Frank S commented
So I assume this is rolling out as per this article:
I see a command -HiddenFromAddressListsEnabled
Can someone explain to me how it is even slightly useful to...
A.) Automatically create an arbitrary email address as an organizational tool for all groups created in O365?
B.) Make that group searchable, even when marked as private? (Private to most people means the only people who know about it were invited to the group manually and on purpose)
C.) Add this arbitrary and useless address that no one ever wanted to the GLOBAL ADDRESS LIST?!
PLEASE FIX THIS!
I am having people email our IT support planner group for help... and no one ever knows it is happening, but they found an address in the GAL so its legit right? No! Just no! One last thing, Secret should be the default, people should only ever know about a group if others want them to know about it. Even if a group is marked public, the GAL does not seem like an appropriate place to advertise the group as no one is using the email address, even if they are part of the group.
Robin Johnson commented
This is the #1 barrier for adoption of Teams in my company.
Like many others, we have a problem with office 365 groups showing up in skype for business searches. We have run the powershell commandlet to hide all O365 unified groups from the GAL -
this ALMOST works. It hides the O365 groups from the GAL, outlook searches and Skype searches for users homed on premise - BUT - we are hybrid at the moment, and users that have been migrated to Skype for Business online show the groups in their Skype searches. We need to be able to hide o365 groups from the skype searches - come on microsoft!
As our request is similar, but not identical to this one, I've voted and commented here but also started a new feedback thread that more accurately reflects our need to hide ALL O365 groups from SFB online client searches here:
Claire Ferneyhough commented
I would also be interested in an update on when the ability to make groups secret would be available.
please update, "near future" is now just a distant memory
Christopher Grande commented
Tony W. commented
I think there is another thread like this that I posted in that should be combined.
But I agree...Private should be "Private" and should not be able to be seen. We just rolled out O365 to students and they are requesting access to all of these "Private" groups thinking it's related to their course of instruction, but are for staff/faculty. I found I could hide them in the GAL but that's useless.
Come on, this needs to be pushed up the timeline.
Wyatt Best commented
My college also needs the ability to have "hidden" or "secret" groups, not just "private" groups. Students are asking to join ridiculous things, like a Teams group for scholarship processing and a Planner group for a database upgrade project.
Management is reluctant to embrace groups because of the chaos.
John Holroyd commented
++ for 'Secret' groups, and add the ability for admins to restrict the right to create groups to public/private or private only to certain subsets of users.
It's a total no brainer.
Gary McCune commented
We killed Teams because of this. Now it looks athough we need to squelch user's ability to make groups as well.
Please, Microsoft, please stop rolling out new O365 features before you have admin options in place to manage them.
David Crabbe commented
It's possible to hide from the GAL, but the Suggested Groups seems to work on social distance (via Graph presumably) and doesn't respect the "hidden" status of the Group.
Eighteen months on from the response and this still isn't implemented... To echo the other commenters, this should have been in place from the start. Please address this issue.
Mr G commented
Seriously, near future? Come on. All we require here is smoke and mirrors. There are no security implications.
All we need to do is hide groups that people dont have access too. I dont know anyone who manages an O365 tennant with self service group membership! It's ridiculous that this is the default use case.
this is something that should have been there from the beginning since it is represents branches or department or other organizational issues.
What is your definition of "near future"
Vojtech Weiss commented
This menu item is useless, and only takes place. Could you please allow users to disable or hide it? It is annoying, one updates his/her office install only to find out sidebars crowded by new menu items nobody asked for.
Paul Ewert commented
The ability to set a Group as private now exists, but the default of Public is wreaking havoc on the trust of our users in or very large tenancy. As Tenant Admins, we need the ability to change the default setting from Public to Private such that a Group--when created--is created as a Private Group instead of as Public.
Mark Burland commented
This, this and so, so this. I'm having to disable vast swathes of functionality for my school. I don't get how this is even usable in a school environment!?
Lawrence Duff commented
This is ridiculous. Being able to security-skin items to prevent unwanted requests for access is a security fundamental dating back decades.
What sort of methodology are MS using to develop Office 365 - smells like an Agile / Scrum mess?
Any update on this? We are a University that requires "Private" groups. We have non -members continually requesting to join because its viewable (even though its a private staff group).
If it were viewable only to group members this would not be an issue.. This seems like it should be an easy fix!?