Date   

locked Re: Profiles

Maria
 

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:28 am, Mike Fay wrote:
And we would never allow anyone in our group with a hidden main profile - to me that is an invitation to let in lurkers.

Agree, in the sense that while they may elect to not have a profile - they are required to have a display name... but I do think that the member directory should be a level playing field and if you can see it, then you either are participating in it or have very limited access to it and can't "use it".

Maria


locked Re: Profiles

Mike Fay <mikefay8888@...>
 

"If I'm understanding you correctly, this is exactly the scenario I outlined. :-) I do think you explain it better."
  What you are doing Mark- at least as explained by John, sounds good to me.
And we would never allow anyone in our group with a hidden main profile - to me that is an invitation to let in lurkers.
We do want the ability to make that profile visible only to group members, and to be able to add to or edit that profile within a subgroup
and for that edited profile to only be viewable by the subgroup members.
 
Mike Fay


locked Re: Profiles

Maria
 

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:17 am, Shal Farley wrote:
Perhaps the list could always include an entry for yourself (the member viewing the list).

If you've not made your profile visible to other members your row could say "(you)" where the display name goes and "Click here to allow other members to see you in this list" where the rest of the row content would be. That latter would be a link to the profile tab of that member's group subscription.

There could also be a row "(968 others)" representing those who've not made their profile viewable to group members. It could say "Profile withheld" or something like that.

Love those ideas. 

What if you were told that you couldn't see other's profiles unless you also set one up and made it visible to them? Or is that Silly? (no coffee yet...), but it would stand to reason that if eventually one could do things such as PM from a profile/directory then they ought to be viewable too? So maybe any links in the directory to see more info about the member would only activate if you too are a participant in the directory?

Maria


locked Re: Profiles

 

J,

One thing I'm not that happy with is the concept for the members list.
If I understand correctly, it would consist only of profile names of
members who make their profile viewable by group members. In a group of
a thousand people, that might be 1,000, 500, 10, or none of them. ... It
would have to be made clear to members viewing the list that it's just
that subset of members who made their profiles viewable.
Perhaps the list could always include an entry for yourself (the member viewing the list).

If you've not made your profile visible to other members your row could say "(you)" where the display name goes and "Click here to allow other members to see you in this list" where the rest of the row content would be. That latter would be a link to the profile tab of that member's group subscription.

There could also be a row "(968 others)" representing those who've not made their profile viewable to group members. It could say "Profile withheld" or something like that.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Profiles

 

Mark,

You can change any of these fields, including the photo. You cannot
change the profile name; your profile name is unique to you and all your
group profiles.
So long as the Profile Name is not revealed in Anonymous groups, as previously discussed. Which means in those groups it cannot be used in the URL by which members or mods access any of the anonymous group member's group-specific profile info.

Is the link to your system-wide profile one of the fields you can change (turn off) in your group profile? That might address J's concern about not being able to prevent group managers from seeing your site-wide profile.

Also, is is your list of group subscriptions reflected in your group profile? And if so, can one hide it or control which groups are shown? That's one of the few things one can't hide or leave blank in the current site-wide profiles.


Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Profiles

 

Hi John,

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:50 PM, JohnF via Groups.io <johnf1686@...> wrote:

Have one main Groups.io profile, including the privacy option, that applies to all groups and subgroups.  If someone wants to be public in all groups, or private in all groups, that can easily be set.  You don't need a "viewable by group members and parent group members" option.

For each group and subgroup, default to the main profile, but allow an override for that group/subgroup only.  Every field, including the privacy field, can be overridden.  Subgroup profiles default to the group profile, unless they are overridden.  (Imagine inheritance in object-oriented programming, except without the ability to add more profile fields.)

If I'm understanding you correctly, this is exactly the scenario I outlined. :-) I do think you explain it better.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Profiles

Maria
 

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 05:50 pm, JohnF wrote:
You don't need a "viewable by group members and parent group members" option.

I think you actually do need that option if you are in a group that has sub-groups. 

Maria


locked Re: Profiles

Maria
 

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 06:24 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
It would have to be made clear to members viewing the list that it's just that subset of members who made their profiles viewable. 

Maybe the Member Directory would have a sub-header to help folks understand how they can be listed in it with a link to their profile. 

Maybe that would clarify that only those with profiles set to display to group members etc are in the directory and that one can opt in to this via a link to one's profile page.

Maria


locked Re: Profiles

 

One thing I'm not that happy with is the concept for the members list. If I understand correctly, it would consist only of profile names of members who make their profile viewable by group members. In a group of a thousand people, that might be 1,000, 500, 10, or none of them. That just strikes me as odd (not the numbers in my example lol). It would have to be made clear to members viewing the list that it's just that subset of members who made their profiles viewable. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

I've been working on improving profiles for the past few days and I need help. There are a few goals with this work:

- Some have asked for different profile photos per subgroup
- I think others have asked for customizing individual fields per subgroup. I believe this was for anonymous groups? Please verify.
- I want to support a Member Directory, which means that additional privacy controls are needed
- The current privacy control (i.e. if you have a profile name, your profile is public) is confusing and not granular enough
- The ability to specify (at least at the enterprise level) which profile fields are visible overall.

To support all this, things can get complicated and confusing quickly, which I'd like to avoid. And I don't want a system that makes it easy for people to inadvertently share info they'd rather not share.

Here is one way to accomplish all that. I'm not thrilled with it, because it feels complicated. I'd appreciate your feedback.

On each subscription page, there's a new Profile tab. Click that, and you see your profile for that (sub)group. For a normal group, the fields are copied from your main profile, the one you have now that you access by clicking your name at the top right corner. For a subgroup, the fields are copied from the profile of the parent group (which are initially copied from your main profile).

You can change any of these fields, including the photo. You cannot change the profile name; your profile name is unique to you and all your group profiles.

There's a new dropdown option for a privacy control, to determine the privacy level of your group profile. It has options like:

- Profile public
- Profile viewable by group members and parent group members (assuming this is a subgroup)
- Profile viewable by group members only
- Profile is private (but viewable by moderators/owners)

If the profile is viewable by group members, then your profile will appear in a new member directory for the group. Profile privacy is no longer dependent on whether you have a profile name or not. The profile name is still useful, for preventing imposters (it will be displayed with your profile), and in the future for a feature where people can mention you by @profilename and you'll get notified of it.

This feels complicated to me. But I'm not sure how else to support the requirement of being able to have multiple profiles (if I don't have to support that, things become clearer). I'd appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

Thanks,
Mark

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Profiles

 

My opinion:

Have one main Groups.io profile, including the privacy option, that applies to all groups and subgroups. If someone wants to be public in all groups, or private in all groups, that can easily be set. You don't need a "viewable by group members and parent group members" option.

For each group and subgroup, default to the main profile, but allow an override for that group/subgroup only. Every field, including the privacy field, can be overridden. Subgroup profiles default to the group profile, unless they are overridden. (Imagine inheritance in object-oriented programming, except without the ability to add more profile fields.)

Example: Say I have a normal firstname/lastname professional profile I use for a variety of groups, and I'd like it to be public. However, one group I'm in is only for my college buddies, and I want to override my profile in that group to use my old nickname instead, and a possibly more embarrassing photo (but I don't want my public professional people to see that!). My college group is also running a roleplaying adventure in a subgroup, and in that subgroup, I want my name to be my character's name, and I want my character's photo.

This implementation would also work for setting things up for anonymous groups, except the moderator would probably want an option to force a separate profile to be made, so that it does not default to the main profile. That would prevent someone from accidentally posting something sketchy with their real name from another group attached.

Does this sound simpler?

JohnF


locked Re: Profiles

 

Sounds reasonable. However, at one level it seems there is less privacy control than before (I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or a bad thing, just noting it), namely: currently, group members can prevent even group owners and moderators from seeing their profile (the mechanism is not important, but they do this of course by having no profile name). Whereas in the new scheme, members must allow at least moderators and owners to see their profile for that group. 

As a group owner I actually personally prefer this, but  that detail of privacy for members seems to go away with the new scheme, unless I'm misunderstanding.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

I've been working on improving profiles for the past few days and I need help. There are a few goals with this work:

- Some have asked for different profile photos per subgroup
- I think others have asked for customizing individual fields per subgroup. I believe this was for anonymous groups? Please verify.
- I want to support a Member Directory, which means that additional privacy controls are needed
- The current privacy control (i.e. if you have a profile name, your profile is public) is confusing and not granular enough
- The ability to specify (at least at the enterprise level) which profile fields are visible overall.

To support all this, things can get complicated and confusing quickly, which I'd like to avoid. And I don't want a system that makes it easy for people to inadvertently share info they'd rather not share.

Here is one way to accomplish all that. I'm not thrilled with it, because it feels complicated. I'd appreciate your feedback.

On each subscription page, there's a new Profile tab. Click that, and you see your profile for that (sub)group. For a normal group, the fields are copied from your main profile, the one you have now that you access by clicking your name at the top right corner. For a subgroup, the fields are copied from the profile of the parent group (which are initially copied from your main profile).

You can change any of these fields, including the photo. You cannot change the profile name; your profile name is unique to you and all your group profiles.

There's a new dropdown option for a privacy control, to determine the privacy level of your group profile. It has options like:

- Profile public
- Profile viewable by group members and parent group members (assuming this is a subgroup)
- Profile viewable by group members only
- Profile is private (but viewable by moderators/owners)

If the profile is viewable by group members, then your profile will appear in a new member directory for the group. Profile privacy is no longer dependent on whether you have a profile name or not. The profile name is still useful, for preventing imposters (it will be displayed with your profile), and in the future for a feature where people can mention you by @profilename and you'll get notified of it.

This feels complicated to me. But I'm not sure how else to support the requirement of being able to have multiple profiles (if I don't have to support that, things become clearer). I'd appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

Thanks,
Mark

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Profiles

 

Hi All,

I've been working on improving profiles for the past few days and I need help. There are a few goals with this work:

- Some have asked for different profile photos per subgroup
- I think others have asked for customizing individual fields per subgroup. I believe this was for anonymous groups? Please verify.
- I want to support a Member Directory, which means that additional privacy controls are needed
- The current privacy control (i.e. if you have a profile name, your profile is public) is confusing and not granular enough
- The ability to specify (at least at the enterprise level) which profile fields are visible overall.

To support all this, things can get complicated and confusing quickly, which I'd like to avoid. And I don't want a system that makes it easy for people to inadvertently share info they'd rather not share.

Here is one way to accomplish all that. I'm not thrilled with it, because it feels complicated. I'd appreciate your feedback.

On each subscription page, there's a new Profile tab. Click that, and you see your profile for that (sub)group. For a normal group, the fields are copied from your main profile, the one you have now that you access by clicking your name at the top right corner. For a subgroup, the fields are copied from the profile of the parent group (which are initially copied from your main profile).

You can change any of these fields, including the photo. You cannot change the profile name; your profile name is unique to you and all your group profiles.

There's a new dropdown option for a privacy control, to determine the privacy level of your group profile. It has options like:

- Profile public
- Profile viewable by group members and parent group members (assuming this is a subgroup)
- Profile viewable by group members only
- Profile is private (but viewable by moderators/owners)

If the profile is viewable by group members, then your profile will appear in a new member directory for the group. Profile privacy is no longer dependent on whether you have a profile name or not. The profile name is still useful, for preventing imposters (it will be displayed with your profile), and in the future for a feature where people can mention you by @profilename and you'll get notified of it.

This feels complicated to me. But I'm not sure how else to support the requirement of being able to have multiple profiles (if I don't have to support that, things become clearer). I'd appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Moving Threads Between Groups/Subgroups

Maria
 

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:52 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.

I look forward to seeing how that is implemented. For it to be useful, it will have to handle the case that someone replies to a thread that was in group A when they got the message, but is now in group B, and their reply would have to wind up in group B, properly threaded into place. Anything less means that there will be ongoing work - until a thread is closed - by the moderators moving messages around.
 
Do you anticipate the case where someone replies to an existing thread but edits the group and sends it to the wrong group? It seems like the main use case would be where someone starts a thread (and people start replying to it) in the wrong group. You'd want to move that thread to the correct group and have any further replies go to that group as well.

I hope it's OK but starting a new thread for this topic. I think I'd also expressed interest in a feature such as this a while back.

As we moderate all our messages - what would be great for me is if when a message is in PENDING we could move it to the pending queue of our main or subgroups ( depending where it belongs). This way it doesn't end up in the digest or get sent out via individual email and cause a snowball of replies to the wrong group, and also this way we don't have to reject the message just because it's posted to the wrong group. We'd simply shift it over to the correct group. At that point, any replies would be sent to the the thread in its correct group.

Hope that's helpful info.

Thank you!

Maria


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

 

Hi Jeff,

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

But I will continue to note issues for you even after the migration. I was a programmer for 20 years, so I have some (slightly) relevant background.

Please do!  
And in light of that, as I type this right here and now, I can't find a way to get this new reply to be outside of the quoted text.

I thought I had fixed that. Hmm, apparently not. It's a bit tricky, so it may be a bit.


Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.

I look forward to seeing how that is implemented. For it to be useful, it will have to handle the case that someone replies to a thread that was in group A when they got the message, but is now in group B, and their reply would have to wind up in group B, properly threaded into place. Anything less means that there will be ongoing work - until a thread is closed - by the moderators moving messages around.
 
Do you anticipate the case where someone replies to an existing thread but edits the group and sends it to the wrong group? It seems like the main use case would be where someone starts a thread (and people start replying to it) in the wrong group. You'd want to move that thread to the correct group and have any further replies go to that group as well.

 

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

We'll ask for that if we need it. And that will depend on the implementation as mentioned above.  :)

As per Shal's suggestion, I've just changed it so that deleting subgroups frees up those names instantly.
 

We're editing the wiki in HTML since that appears to have been the default. I've seen references to Markdown, but I just checked the settings page and saw nothing obvious as to how to change the setting from HTML to Markdown. I'll have to look around some more later today when I have more time. And thank you for images coming to the wiki eventually. That will be helpful in some small number of cases for us.

I've just added a dialog to the editor to let you easily link to other wiki pages. Hopefully that will help.

Cheers,
Mark 


locked Updates to Trello

Beta Integration <beta@...>
 

[Beta] New comment on card "Insert link dialog should show other wiki pages." by Mark Fletcher:

There's now a new button, 'Link to Wiki Page', which brings up a dialog letting you easily link to another wiki page.


[Beta] The card "Insert link dialog should show other wiki pages." was archived.


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

 

Mark,

jeffp wrote:

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me
that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse
unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is
life.
You wrote:

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.
Could subgroup names not be reserved after deletion?

I get it for primary groups (that namespace is shared site wide), but subgroup names are local to the primary group (at least, they don't conflict across primary groups). Is it just that the same database and code is used for both?

I don't see a technical or user-experience reason that subgroup names need to be reserved.

Wiki images are coming soon.
Yea!

Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never
added to the TODO list.
Ahem,
https://trello.com/c/vjOwhw8t/224-insert-link-dialog-should-show-other-wiki-pages


Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

This depends entirely on what email system is being used. I use Pegasus Mail on
my desktop machine. It just has one "Reply" button, but when I click that
button it always brings up a list of checkbox options, from which I can select
any or all. The options offered for this purpose are:
'From' field
'Reply-to' field
'Cc' field
'To' field
'Sender' field

Obviously there could be some duplication if I was silly enough to select all
those options.

This gives me total flexibility, and is in no way dependent on any group
settings - these will only affect the 'Reply-to' field, but not the others. So,
persuade your members with the problem to switch to using Pegasus and the
problem will disappear.

Incidentally, I always send and read messages in plain text.

Jim Fisher

On 9 Sep 2016 at 19:18, Jeff Powell wrote:

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:06 pm, J_catlady wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 09:53 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:
edit their TO lines when they want to direct a message back to just the OP,
rather than the entire group. As things stand, we can't do that here on
groups.io. 

It seems what you want is for your members to be able to reply to the individual
*rather* than to the group, via email - since you say "just to the OP." We can
do that on Groups.io via the web, using the "Private" button.

But this was my question before, which I posed to Shal: is there really no way
here to "reply to individual" via email? Perhaps I didn't understand the answer.
In any case, that seems to be a lack, regardless of the "both" setting Jeff is
suggesting. And if that lack is fixed (assuming it exists), then is there still
a need for the "both" setting?


 As far as I can tell you, no, there is no way to reply to just the sender via
email.

And please note that email has a zillion standards that are supposed to be
followed (more or less) by the various email programs. You can't add a button to
an email - at least, not a plain text email - to allow someone to reply
differently. But even if you did, that won't change the behavior of the reply
and reply-all functions provided by the email software. Those read certain
headers in the message to determine what "Reply" means, so if you want to change
what those headers say, that has to be a group configuration setting, and that
is what we're talking about here. Giving groups the option to change the content
of the Reply-To header to have a third option: Group, Sender, Both.

I wish it was simpler, but it really isn't. Mark can't change the way gmail, and
MS live mail (or whatever they are calling it this week), and Yahoo mail, and
Apple mail, and a zillion other programs work. All he can do is change the
headers that get sent with messages, and let those programs do what they will
with the results.

--jeffp
--
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

Gah... hit the wrong button and submitted without editing. Sorry! Comments and additional mea-culpas below in bold blue.

--jeffp


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:13 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry you're running into issues setting up your groups.

No worries! This system is easy to use overall, and you are very responsive, which is entirely unlike another groups system you might have heard of, where we're at right now.  :)  Oh, and FYI, I think we're going to ask for the actual migration in about 1.5 weeks. All our moderators have craziness going on this coming week, so we're going to wait for that to settle down before we subject ourselves to 1700 copies of "How do I do X again?"  :)

But I will continue to note issues for you even after the migration. I was a programmer for 20 years, so I have some (slightly) relevant background.

And in light of that, as I type this right here and now, I can't find a way to get this new reply to be outside of the quoted text. I am replying on the UI (not from email) because I've got beta setup to send me the digest and this is the better way for me to respond to complicated questions, but that means I am not in gmail, which I think would just let me hit enter once or twice and I'd be back to normal text. Here in the GUI editor on the site, I can't find a way to remove the formatting (and thus pull this text all the way to the left margin). I tried hitting enter a couple of times, but that didn't work. Tried the "p" style. No luck either. I guess I'd have to go into the HTML mode and muck with the blockquote tags, but that's pretty difficult for some to do, and even harder in that editor with no line breaks present at all.

Is there any way to add a "remove all formatting" button that would apply to the selected text at the time? Gmail has such a feature, as does localwiki.

Anyway... on to your next comment.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

As some of you might recall, I looked into subgroups as part of our coming migration, hoping to solve some issues with hot topics and other things in our neighborhood group. Alas they aren't in a state where they help with that for us, because we can't move messages (and threads) between groups easily and keep replies from showing up in the wrong place. So, unless that changes, subgroups are a no go for us.

Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.

I look forward to seeing how that is implemented. For it to be useful, it will have to handle the case that someone replies to a thread that was in group A when they got the message, but is now in group B, and their reply would have to wind up in group B, properly threaded into place. Anything less means that there will be ongoing work - until a thread is closed - by the moderators moving messages around.
 

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is life.

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

We'll ask for that if we need it. And that will depend on the implementation as mentioned above.  :)

 

I suggest everyone think LONG and HARD about creating any subgroups if you have links anywhere in your system - in messages or the wiki, at least - because if you do, your first subgroup will break all those links.

Not true. When going from 0 to 1 or more subgroups, all original URLs still work, just like the original email addresses still work.

Ah. That is a good point. In our case we didn't start adding things to the wiki until after the subgroup was created. So we saw the impact of going from 1 (or more) subgroups down to 0, but not the other way around. My error. (Never assume... ... you know the rest.)

As you discovered, however, going from at least one subgroup to no subgroups does not preserve the subdomain URLs (nor the subdomain-related email addresses). When developing the system I had to weigh the effort involved vs how often that would happen. I didn't think people going from subgroups to no subgroups would happen much/at all, outside of people testing the system. If this is an incorrect assumption, I can certainly look into adding in the redirect system for that.

I wish I had an answer for that which would be helpful. Probably the deletion of all subgroups will be rare, as you suspect, but I really don't know. Do you have any stats on how many groups use subgroups now? And how many are active? Those might start pointing towards an answer. (That's a rhetorical question. Please don't waste your time answering that for me!)

And while I am on this rant - sorry! - this wiki is very limiting. No images? Real URLs for internal links rather than the much simpler page name schemes used by most wikis? Without wanting to make even more work for myself, is there anything that can be done about that?

Wiki images are coming soon (as part of the work I did adding database images this week, I did some of the work required to support wiki images). Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never added to the TODO list. Do you edit the wiki using Markdown or HTML? I'd definitely like to make it easier to link to other pages, through a dialog popup or something similar.

We're editing the wiki in HTML since that appears to have been the default. I've seen references to Markdown, but I just checked the settings page and saw nothing obvious as to how to change the setting from HTML to Markdown. I'll have to look around some more later today when I have more time. And thank you for images coming to the wiki eventually. That will be helpful in some small number of cases for us.

Thanks,
Mark 

No, thank you!
--jeffp

 


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:13 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry you're running into issues setting up your groups.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

As some of you might recall, I looked into subgroups as part of our coming migration, hoping to solve some issues with hot topics and other things in our neighborhood group. Alas they aren't in a state where they help with that for us, because we can't move messages (and threads) between groups easily and keep replies from showing up in the wrong place. So, unless that changes, subgroups are a no go for us.

Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.
 

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is life.

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

 

I suggest everyone think LONG and HARD about creating any subgroups if you have links anywhere in your system - in messages or the wiki, at least - because if you do, your first subgroup will break all those links.

Not true. When going from 0 to 1 or more subgroups, all original URLs still work, just like the original email addresses still work.

As you discovered, however, going from at least one subgroup to no subgroups does not preserve the subdomain URLs (nor the subdomain-related email addresses). When developing the system I had to weigh the effort involved vs how often that would happen. I didn't think people going from subgroups to no subgroups would happen much/at all, outside of people testing the system. If this is an incorrect assumption, I can certainly look into adding in the redirect system for that.

And while I am on this rant - sorry! - this wiki is very limiting. No images? Real URLs for internal links rather than the much simpler page name schemes used by most wikis? Without wanting to make even more work for myself, is there anything that can be done about that?

Wiki images are coming soon (as part of the work I did adding database images this week, I did some of the work required to support wiki images). Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never added to the TODO list. Do you edit the wiki using Markdown or HTML? I'd definitely like to make it easier to link to other pages, through a dialog popup or something similar.

Thanks,
Mark 

 


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:26 am, Jeff Powell wrote:
The problem with those links is that they do not include the message context

I was unaware of that. However, Groups.io intentionally sweeps the prior message into ellipses for onlist replies, as well. In fact, if the reply consists of nothing but a top post, everything below it (even if the responder intentionally wants to include some text) gets swept into ellipses.

I was unaware of how "Reply to Sender" works for email and plan on checking it out now. 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

19241 - 19260 of 30083