Over the years, I have trained my members to include the part of the message that their reply relates to. This is important when you have a lively discussion and your message is not a reply to the latest message, but one earlier in the topic. In February we moved from Yahoo! Groups to Groups,io and at first there were very few problems. There was some confusion amongst the website users (no email), when we moved, as they had to learn to use the speech bubble and then trim the text to the few lines necessary to provide context, when writing a reply. There was also some confusion amongst the website users when reading these emails with included text, until they realize the elipses (known as 3 dots in my group) hid the included text and needed a click to see this text. So, after some time, we all settled down to the new way of doing things.
Now comes the big problem. The Digest users keep saying where are the 3 dots you keep mentioning and why can't I click on 3 dots and see the included text? Where is the context to this reply, and accusing members of not including context. Some of the website users were reminding their fellow website users to use the 3 dots to see the included text. The digest users were very unhappy as they could not see the context from any of the users (whatever the delivery method) and were confused about which reply belonged to which previous message. I (the owner of the group) did not realise until last week (even though we moved in February), that the Digest removed all the quoted text. This is a big problem for our Digest users and I would like to go back to having this text included.
What I am thinking is that I would propose (in the Beta group) that an option be added to the settings, so that you can have the included text trimmed or not. The default would be as it is now, so as not to disturb any current users of Groups.io, but owners or moderators can switch off the trimming of included text, of course, at the risk of too much being included (chains of included emails).
I don't think it would be a big deal to implement such an option. Would there be any objections to me making such a suggestion?