Date   

moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

Michael Pavan
 

J,

BTW, your signature is double-spaced on both email and the website.

On Sep 7, 2018, at 9:54 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

That's basically right. The signature is single-spaced in the member page but double spaced in the archived message. I don't know if I still have the email, so I don't know how it comes out in that, but I will send you all the info I have at support. Thanks!
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

That's basically right. The signature is single-spaced in the member page but double spaced in the archived message. I don't know if I still have the email, so I don't know how it comes out in that, but I will send you all the info I have at support. Thanks!
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 3:45 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Thanks, this is great, but I checked and the person in question was actually posting via the web, and the signature came out double-spaced although it appears single-spaced in their signature. I think the problem with the double spacing was probably not HTML-related but something to do with hidden formatting (I am clueless about those issues and not really sure what I'm talking about). I'm sure stripping HTML from the sig will be an improvement overall, but there's something else afoot if the below is true. I could send you the example to support...

In the email you receive, the sig is double spaced, but when you view their sig in their member page, it appears single spaced? The Normalize HTML Email setting doesn't do anything for line spacing. Please send me a pointer to their member page on support and I'll take a look.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

Mark,

Thanks, this is great, but I checked and the person in question was actually posting via the web, and the signature came out double-spaced although it appears single-spaced in their signature. I think the problem with the double spacing was probably not HTML-related but something to do with hidden formatting (I am clueless about those issues and not really sure what I'm talking about). I'm sure stripping HTML from the sig will be an improvement overall, but there's something else afoot if the below is true. I could send you the example to support...


On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 03:18 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
this was already done for people posting from the website, it just wasn't being done when we applied a signature to an incoming email
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 9:08 PM, Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

> This could be done with sub-option under "Normalize HTML emails" that
> says "Include auto-signatures."

Even simpler, I wouldn't bother with the sub-option. I can't imagine a use case for not also normalizing the signature.


Just pushed the change where if Normalize HTML Emails is set, we do that for the signatures as well (this was already done for people posting from the website, it just wasn't being done when we applied a signature to an incoming email).

(Been quiet this week because it's been infrastructure week here at Groups.io, and I've been heads down on some backend stuff that needed doing).

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Change "Rejected message" to "Message rejected" in member activity log #suggestion

 

Actually I'll walk that back. I do like your "system rejected message," because it distinguishes between that circumstance and a moderator rejecting a message.


On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 1:39 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 01:24 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
In the original "Rejected message" the word "rejected" could be an adjective or a verb, but in the proposed "Message rejected" it's a verb (past tense). 
In "Rejected message," "rejected" could be either and adjective or a verb.

But in "Message rejected," rejected can't be a verb and can therefore only be an adjective. If "rejected" were interpreted as a verb in "Message rejected," "Message" would be the subject, and messages don't reject things. 

"System rejected message" is an improvement but I don't think it's necessary. "Message rejected" is unambiguous. Furthermore, "Message rejected" would be consistent with the rest of the entries.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Change "Rejected message" to "Message rejected" in member activity log #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 01:24 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
In the original "Rejected message" the word "rejected" could be an adjective or a verb, but in the proposed "Message rejected" it's a verb (past tense). 
In "Rejected message," "rejected" could be either and adjective or a verb.

But in "Message rejected," rejected can't be a verb and can therefore only be an adjective. If "rejected" were interpreted as a verb in "Message rejected," "Message" would be the subject, and messages don't reject things. 

"System rejected message" is an improvement but I don't think it's necessary. "Message rejected" is unambiguous. Furthermore, "Message rejected" would be consistent with the rest of the entries.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Change "Rejected message" to "Message rejected" in member activity log #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/7/2018 08:04 PM UTC:

I would change them all of these entires to start with "Message rejected," making the word "rejected" unambiguously an adjective rather than an action.


In the original "Rejected message" the word "rejected" could be an adjective or a verb, but in the proposed "Message rejected" it's a verb (past tense). English language syntax doesn't place adjectives AFTER the noun they modify or describe. The proposed change only adds confusion.

Perhaps "System rejected message..."

Jim H


moderated Change "Rejected message" to "Message rejected" in member activity log #suggestion

 

I think (but am not sure) that this is a recent change:  

The search terms for rejected messages all now read
"Rejected message because of [xyz]"
e.g., "Rejected message because of attachments," "Rejected message from member who can't post," etc.

These are entires in the Message Activity log, and the word "Rejected" is meant to read as an adjective. Yet they actually read as an action by a person, as if a moderator rejected the message, and that's not the case. All the rejections in these entries were automatic by the system. The only active "rejection" available in the Moderator Activity log is "Rejected pending message."

So I think the language is unclear, and I would change them all of these entires to start with "Message rejected," making the word "rejected" unambiguously an adjective rather than an action. This change would also make them consistent with the other entries in the search terms, like "Moderated message' and "Non-member message."

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Include group tag when a member sends a private message #suggestion

 

I just received a private message which obviously came from some groups.io group, but I have no idea which one (I'm a member of several). The message title is pretty generic and the group name or tag is not included. Could that be added?
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Make consistent the adherence of topics to changes in their hashtags' attributes #suggestion

 

If a topic is marked with a hashtag, and you later (after the message has posted) set the hashtag to set to (for example) "reply to sender" (in a group set to "reply to group"), the topic is then correctly set to "reply to sender." Similarly with the reverse: if a topic has a hashtag set to "reply to sender," and you later remove "reply to sender" from the hashtag, the topic also loses the "reply to sender" attribute.

The same behavior holds for "moderated": if a topic is already marked with some hashtag, and you later set the tag to "moderated," the topic becomes moderated; and the reverse (remove "moderated" from the tag and the topic goes back to unmoderated). 

However, the "locked" hashtag attribute behaves differently. If you mark a topic with a tag and later set the tag to "locked," the topic does not become locked; and similarly for the reverse (if you mark a topic with a tag that is set to "locked" and you later remove the lock attribute, the topic does not unlock).

In looking at the descriptions of the hashtag attributes, there is a slight discrepancy between the "locked" and "moderated" attributes. "Moderated" is described as "messages with this hashtag will be moderated," whereas "Locked" is described as "topics with this tag will be locked immediately." And so I wonder whether this discrepancy in the language - locked "immediately" vs. no such adverb for "moderated" or for "reply to sender" (et al) - is an intentional reflection of intentionally disparate behavior: namely, you can use a hashtag to lock a topic only "immediately" (but not later), in contrast to the other attributes, where the topic marches in lock step with later changes in the hashtag.

So my questions are, is this disparity (in both the language and the behavior) of the "locked" attribute on a hashtag intentional, and if so, why? Couldn't "Locked" be something which, like the other attributes, could be applied later to the topic if and when the hashtag changes?

(A minor matter: in testing these, I noticed that a topic locked via hashtag displays the locked icon, but a topic moderated via hashtag does not display the moderated icon.)
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Display images in a carousel #suggestion

 

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 04:08 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
One cannot assume that attachments *are* images.
True, but it would still be nice to have the carousel feature for attachments, no matter what they are. We have members posting lab reports, sometimes large numbers of them in a single post, and you continually have to go back and forth and see them all.
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Display images in a carousel #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 01:09 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Handling the attachments to a given message as a mini-album is a reasonable suggestion. It would be equivalent to what Yahoo Groups referred to as a "Photomatic" album.
One cannot assume that attachments *are* images. And doesn't the Photomatic functionality already exist in the Emailed Photos folder?

Bruce


moderated Re: Display images in a carousel #suggestion

 

Colin,

I'm not seeing this at all. When I see a post with image attachments,
it has a bunch of small images underneath.
Bruce was referring to images in an album in the Photos section.

Handling the attachments to a given message as a mini-album is a reasonable suggestion. It would be equivalent to what Yahoo Groups referred to as a "Photomatic" album.

Shal


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

I thought I'd seen something about this before, so I did a search and found the request below, which seems related to my request to curtail the length of the signature in general, and also to this thread:

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/9499672

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 09:08 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
(Though saying that ensures that someone will think of one.)
Of course they will. I'm counting down. ;p
 
--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

J,

This could be done with sub-option under "Normalize HTML emails" that
says "Include auto-signatures."
Even simpler, I wouldn't bother with the sub-option. I can't imagine a use case for not also normalizing the signature.

(Though saying that ensures that someone will think of one.)

Shal


moderated Re: Button to temporarily swap Owner/Mod view to Subscriber view (for testing purposes)

Alan N
 

Thank you Dave for the explanation.  I created an email alias, and will use that to test the Subscriber view.


moderated Re: Updating existing file in Files #suggestion

dave w
 

OP-
Good document control practise is that you do not have a constantly named file unless it's iteration is also described.
People will inevitable download these things and then not know what version it is they have. (Ever been accused of misleading ppl only to find they have a 3 year old file they use for reference)?
Relying on a 'change date' field is a poor second best 'control'.

Not criticising Marks bug fix or reasons for change ;-)
regards
davew


moderated Re: Option to remove formatting from auto-sigs #suggestion

 

This is somewhat related to a previous request I made for an option to limit the number of characters in the sig:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/23851783

--
J

 

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.

My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

12621 - 12640 of 30686