Date   

moderated Re: Daily Summary Email

Frances
 

Hi everyone,

Would it be possible to contain the number of messages for each subject?

It might be interesting but ?not necessary? for the tags to be shown:

But things that do show should be clickable in the email.

Morning would be useful.

Frances

On Feb 2 17, at 2:43 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

I like Maria's idea of a daily summary email. What should it contain? If it was just like a digest, it'd be way too long. Should it just contain a list of subjects of messages that were sent over the previous 24 hours?

Also, when should it be sent? I'm thinking perhaps morning time.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Daily Summary Email

 

Hi All,

I like Maria's idea of a daily summary email. What should it contain? If it was just like a digest, it'd be way too long. Should it just contain a list of subjects of messages that were sent over the previous 24 hours?

Also, when should it be sent? I'm thinking perhaps morning time.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Digests tweak

 

That was a typo. She received 12 digests, not 11.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2017, at 11:35 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

In the group in question, the traffic has always been several hundred messages per day. The person who complained is a very experienced group member and practically (although I believe, unofficially) runs the group in question. Yesterday she literally received 11 digests from the IBD group. This is almost causing her to go no-email. 

Those sound like good suggestions.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:38 AM, HR Tech via Groups.Io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

In busy groups what I am seeing is: the increase in digests has helped increase activity. So that's a good thing.

But yes, perhaps there are those who are wondering why they are getting 2x the amount of digests, but still may prefer the fact that finally they work well - lets remember that not only were they clipped - they were truncated with no link in gmail app PLUS the reply to links didn't work properly in the expanded version - so big issues.

But I did receive one feedback from a person who felt the frequency of digests was too much (even though it's exactly the way it was on Y! now) - this was a newbie so the prior user "training" didn't apply, and I suspect that even the 1 digest every 25 messages would have felt like too much for that person as they still would have gotten 2 or even 3 in a 24 hour period from 2 of our busy groups. I'm actively requesting feedback so I may learn more.

My suggestion at the moment, is to have an additional email delivery option: "daily summary of activity". This could be every 24 hours/ daily. I'd suggest on that one (since it will be clipped/truncated) to make the index titles link to the actual web version of the posts. I'd also suggest that the reply links link to the web interface so people can use that to reply (because the reply links don't work well after the digest gets truncated). And this could be an elective option for those who don't want multiple digests but don't want special notices only. 

Also - i think once the issue of that 1AM digest is resolved that will help too.

Maria


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: Digests tweak

 

In the group in question, the traffic has always been several hundred messages per day. The person who complained is a very experienced group member and practically (although I believe, unofficially) runs the group in question. Yesterday she literally received 11 digests from the IBD group. This is almost causing her to go no-email. 

Those sound like good suggestions.

J

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 2, 2017, at 10:38 AM, HR Tech via Groups.Io <m.conway11@...> wrote:

In busy groups what I am seeing is: the increase in digests has helped increase activity. So that's a good thing.

But yes, perhaps there are those who are wondering why they are getting 2x the amount of digests, but still may prefer the fact that finally they work well - lets remember that not only were they clipped - they were truncated with no link in gmail app PLUS the reply to links didn't work properly in the expanded version - so big issues.

But I did receive one feedback from a person who felt the frequency of digests was too much (even though it's exactly the way it was on Y! now) - this was a newbie so the prior user "training" didn't apply, and I suspect that even the 1 digest every 25 messages would have felt like too much for that person as they still would have gotten 2 or even 3 in a 24 hour period from 2 of our busy groups. I'm actively requesting feedback so I may learn more.

My suggestion at the moment, is to have an additional email delivery option: "daily summary of activity". This could be every 24 hours/ daily. I'd suggest on that one (since it will be clipped/truncated) to make the index titles link to the actual web version of the posts. I'd also suggest that the reply links link to the web interface so people can use that to reply (because the reply links don't work well after the digest gets truncated). And this could be an elective option for those who don't want multiple digests but don't want special notices only. 

Also - i think once the issue of that 1AM digest is resolved that will help too.

Maria


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: Digests tweak

Frances
 

Hi

Perhaps more info to subscribers about alternative ways to subscribe?

There is a link in the footer to Change Your Subscription. If you get every post as a separate email, we get follow / unfollow.

Not sure about digest. Perhaps links or help there would be good? Or clearer?

Frances


moderated Re: Digests tweak

Maria
 

In busy groups what I am seeing is: the increase in digests has helped increase activity. So that's a good thing.

But yes, perhaps there are those who are wondering why they are getting 2x the amount of digests, but still may prefer the fact that finally they work well - lets remember that not only were they clipped - they were truncated with no link in gmail app PLUS the reply to links didn't work properly in the expanded version - so big issues.

But I did receive one feedback from a person who felt the frequency of digests was too much (even though it's exactly the way it was on Y! now) - this was a newbie so the prior user "training" didn't apply, and I suspect that even the 1 digest every 25 messages would have felt like too much for that person as they still would have gotten 2 or even 3 in a 24 hour period from 2 of our busy groups. I'm actively requesting feedback so I may learn more.

My suggestion at the moment, is to have an additional email delivery option: "daily summary of activity". This could be every 24 hours/ daily. I'd suggest on that one (since it will be clipped/truncated) to make the index titles link to the actual web version of the posts. I'd also suggest that the reply links link to the web interface so people can use that to reply (because the reply links don't work well after the digest gets truncated). And this could be an elective option for those who don't want multiple digests but don't want special notices only. 

Also - i think once the issue of that 1AM digest is resolved that will help too.

Maria


moderated Re: Digests tweak

 

Just got an offlist message from a member of my group who's also in another group, that one with a ginormous amount of daily traffic. She is being driven crazy, says she's now getting about a dozen digests a day. Suggests that the number of posts in a digest could be a member option. She had no problem with her email trimming long messages.

It does seem optimal, if at all feasible to implement, to let the number of posts be a member option. 
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

I love the banner, BTW, "down for upgrades."

"Are you down for upgrades?" "Yeah I'm down" LOL

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Oh okay thanks.

On Feb 1, 2017, at 6:13 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@gmail.com> wrote:

Joeseph,

Sugar, is that you trying to agree with me? I've never heard of that
terminology before.
Yes, it is a cry of agreement. Mostly British, I think.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hear,_hear

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



moderated Re: Digests tweak

 

Mark,

I am proposing changing the algorithm that forces a digest. My
proposal is that at 10pm pacific, if there are pending digest
messages *AND* the person has not received a digest in the last 12
hours, to generate a digest.
This suggests to me another way of looking at Digests. Maybe instead of a time of day, you can trigger them by a maximum age for the oldest message in the digest when the max count/size hasn't been reached.

The extra bit of complexity might be offset by smoothing out the delivery burden (on the average - you'd still see the occasional rogue wave).

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


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

Joeseph,

Sugar, is that you trying to agree with me? I've never heard of that
terminology before.
Yes, it is a cry of agreement. Mostly British, I think.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hear,_hear

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


moderated Re: Digests tweak

Frances
 

Mark wrote: "My proposal is that at 10pm pacific, if there are pending digest messages *AND* the person has not received a digest in the last 12 hours, to generate a digest."

Would you send out more than 12 messages if there were more waiting? I would not like to have "left-over" pending digest messages wait for 12 hours for another digest.

Frances


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:01 pm, Brian Vogel wrote:
 This is directly parallel to the "dead in the water page with the Groups.io kitten(s)" that I get when the site is down for whatever reason when you try to access the web interface.

Parallel but not equal. No kittens does not equal kittens. I vote for kitten photos with the email! :-)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones.

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


moderated Re: Digests tweak

Donald Hellen
 

Mark . . .

On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:14:34 -0800, "Mark Fletcher"
<markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

I am proposing changing the algorithm that forces a digest. My proposal is that at 10pm pacific, if there are pending digest messages *AND* the person has not received a digest in the last 12 hours, to generate a digest.
If I were using the digest version of a group, I would prefer it that
way. Better yet, how about a user-selectable setting for the time it
trips the digest to the member?

But I would prefer what you suggested over getting multiple ones close
together.

Donald


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Oh okay cool thanks for the clarification.

On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Sugar <sugarsyl71@...> wrote:

Yeppers, cheers!
 
‘I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the
night.
 
Sugar
 
From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:01 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite
 
Sugar, is that you trying to agree with me? I've never heard of that terminology before.
On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Sugar <sugarsyl71@...> wrote:
 
Here, here.
 
‘I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the
night.
 
Sugar
 
From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:13 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite
 
I agree, and if it doesn't satisfy dust fuzzy group owners then oh well. You can't find a much better site to run your group on other than this one. Especially with everything being very accessible, and plus having a guru to discuss things with the developer/owner of the site. I don't think anybody besides Mark Fletcher, could do anything like this. He definitely has a lot of patience.
On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
 
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:47 am, Joseph Hudson wrote:
a message that went out to each individual subscriber when they attempted to try to post to the group.  [My addition: while the outage was in effect]
Which is a perfectly reasonable, preferable I'd say, alternative to a broadcast message.  That way no one but someone who might be directly affected/confused by a previously unexplained outage would have the information about what's going on.  This is directly parallel to the "dead in the water page with the Groups.io kitten(s)" that I get when the site is down for whatever reason when you try to access the web interface.
This should satisfy fussy group owners, too
-- 
Brian
 
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
    ~ Anne Lamott
 


 





moderated Digests tweak

 

Hi All,

Currently, digests go out every 12 messages and at 10pm pacific if there are any pending digest messages at all. In some active groups, this could lead to something like a 'full' 12 message digest and then a 1-2 message digest, and then another 12 message digest, in fairly rapid succession. 

I am proposing changing the algorithm that forces a digest. My proposal is that at 10pm pacific, if there are pending digest messages *AND* the person has not received a digest in the last 12 hours, to generate a digest.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

Sugar
 

Yeppers, cheers!

 

‘I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the

night.

 

Sugar

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 1:01 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

Sugar, is that you trying to agree with me? I've never heard of that terminology before.

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Sugar <sugarsyl71@...> wrote:

 

Here, here.

 

‘I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the

night.

 

Sugar

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:13 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

I agree, and if it doesn't satisfy dust fuzzy group owners then oh well. You can't find a much better site to run your group on other than this one. Especially with everything being very accessible, and plus having a guru to discuss things with the developer/owner of the site. I don't think anybody besides Mark Fletcher, could do anything like this. He definitely has a lot of patience.

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

 

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:47 am, Joseph Hudson wrote:

a message that went out to each individual subscriber when they attempted to try to post to the group.  [My addition: while the outage was in effect]

Which is a perfectly reasonable, preferable I'd say, alternative to a broadcast message.  That way no one but someone who might be directly affected/confused by a previously unexplained outage would have the information about what's going on.  This is directly parallel to the "dead in the water page with the Groups.io kitten(s)" that I get when the site is down for whatever reason when you try to access the web interface.

This should satisfy fussy group owners, too
-- 
Brian

 

You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

    ~ Anne Lamott

 



 




moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

Joseph Hudson <jhud7789@...>
 

Sugar, is that you trying to agree with me? I've never heard of that terminology before.

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:39 PM, Sugar <sugarsyl71@...> wrote:

Here, here.
 
‘I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the
night.
 
Sugar
 
From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:13 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite
 
I agree, and if it doesn't satisfy dust fuzzy group owners then oh well. You can't find a much better site to run your group on other than this one. Especially with everything being very accessible, and plus having a guru to discuss things with the developer/owner of the site. I don't think anybody besides Mark Fletcher, could do anything like this. He definitely has a lot of patience.
On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
 
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:47 am, Joseph Hudson wrote:
a message that went out to each individual subscriber when they attempted to try to post to the group.  [My addition: while the outage was in effect]
Which is a perfectly reasonable, preferable I'd say, alternative to a broadcast message.  That way no one but someone who might be directly affected/confused by a previously unexplained outage would have the information about what's going on.  This is directly parallel to the "dead in the water page with the Groups.io kitten(s)" that I get when the site is down for whatever reason when you try to access the web interface.
This should satisfy fussy group owners, too.
-- 
Brian
 
You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
    ~ Anne Lamott
 





moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

Mark,

I learned long ago that group owners are very possessive of their
groups and members, and do not like anything happening with their
groups that they don't know about or control. Note, this is not a
criticism.
I wouldn't be concerned if the notice went out by email to all users, from a general groups.io address. I just wouldn't want it to appear to my members as a posting in my groups (had the group subject tag and group footers).

For another thing, posting in all the groups would mean that someone who's a member of several groups would get several copies of the notice.

That's just me though. I've seen in Y!Groups that sometimes members don't recognize the distinction between notices from the service and notices/messages from the group. And accordingly some group managers are touchy about messages from the service as well.

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


moderated Re: Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

Sugar
 

Here, here.

 

‘I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the

night.

 

Sugar

 

From: beta@groups.io [mailto:beta@groups.io] On Behalf Of Joseph Hudson
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:13 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Event: Site maintenance, Thursday, 2 February 2017 #downtime #cal-invite

 

I agree, and if it doesn't satisfy dust fuzzy group owners then oh well. You can't find a much better site to run your group on other than this one. Especially with everything being very accessible, and plus having a guru to discuss things with the developer/owner of the site. I don't think anybody besides Mark Fletcher, could do anything like this. He definitely has a lot of patience.

On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

 

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:47 am, Joseph Hudson wrote:

a message that went out to each individual subscriber when they attempted to try to post to the group.  [My addition: while the outage was in effect]

Which is a perfectly reasonable, preferable I'd say, alternative to a broadcast message.  That way no one but someone who might be directly affected/confused by a previously unexplained outage would have the information about what's going on.  This is directly parallel to the "dead in the water page with the Groups.io kitten(s)" that I get when the site is down for whatever reason when you try to access the web interface.

This should satisfy fussy group owners, too.
--
Brian

 

You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

    ~ Anne Lamott

 



17981 - 18000 of 30656