# \`logged\_in\_users\` group page

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/logged-in-users-group-page/411152
**Category:** UX
**Created:** [August 28, 2026, 2:35pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/logged-in-users-group-page/411152 "2026-08-28T14:35:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Moin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/moin/32/554653_2.png) [@Moin](https://meta.discourse.org/u/Moin)
#### Post date: [August 28, 2026, 2:35pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/logged-in-users-group-page/411152/1 "2026-08-28T14:35:13Z")

</div>

Somehow I had expected the new pseudo-groups to work similar to the `everyone` pseudo-group.

There is no `/g/everyone` but `/g/logged_in_users` works and shows an empty group

 ![Screenshot_20260828_162016_Firefox](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/4X/e/2/3/e23da2d35a0878921dc9acbf6043a77171e94e5c.jpeg)  
This member list seems misleading, and I wonder which of the other options, like group flair, make sense.  
It’s also confusing that the group is not shown on the `/groups` page but is linked in the category security settings  
 ![Screenshot_20260828_160854_Firefox](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/4X/a/0/6/a06de63158142e8c92cf956f88f7418890838f6c.jpeg)

I like that you can see the group description, but aside from that, the `everyone` group solution feels more intuitive to me, supporting the impression that this isn’t a real group.