Date   

moderated Re: Photo search and clean up of the photos pages

 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:24 PM Annick Phillips <annick@...> wrote:
I really like the new photo format, Mark, as my groups depend a lot on photos. Our emailed photo album cover just shows a gray screen now, though, where it used to show the most recent emailed photo. Can you fix that? The search function is a great addition for us...thanks so much! 

This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark 


moderated Re: Photo search and clean up of the photos pages

 

Something is off. After deleting a photo, the thumbnails (I guess you could call them that) don't seem to adjust. You click on an image and it produces a completely different photo from the thumbnail image.
--
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: Photo search and clean up of the photos pages

Annick Phillips
 

I really like the new photo format, Mark, as my groups depend a lot on photos. Our emailed photo album cover just shows a gray screen now, though, where it used to show the most recent emailed photo. Can you fix that? The search function is a great addition for us...thanks so much! Now if you could just add comments below a photo and have a Photostream, we would be elated.
Annick


moderated Re: web-based questionnaire for restricted groups a pressing issue #suggestion

Nancy Funk <funkmomma71@...>
 

I hadn't seen this topic before, but as an owner of a group of people who meet in person with our children, I would love to have the ability to have a member questionnaire. As it is now when someone applies to our group we send them to a google forms application that needs to be completed before we allow them to join our group. So I've got to monitor not only the member request here on GIO, but also the google form and then transfer some of their info to a database here. It would be awesome to be able to have the full application process all in one place. The idea Mark stated earlier of having an application that allows owners the ability to decide what information to share to the entire group and what info to keep for mods eyes only is terrific. We were able to do this on BigTent, unfortunately, they are shutting down. While we love the simplicity of GIO, we do miss the ability to more fully screen our applicants without the use of another outside website. 


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 05:02 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I don't think it is necessary to muck about with the Subscription settings
The advantage of doing it via subscription settings is that you could also give control over other subscription options - e.g. display name, which has already been requested, and possibly others if desired. The "disadvantage" (not a disadvantage from my point of view) is that it would create a truly web-only group, with no emails, except possibly special notices.
 
--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

 

Marv,

I have no issue with a 'web-only" option, as long as it does not
compromise current or future email group functionality, but I doubt
that I would use it.
I don't foresee using it either, but I don't think it would need to compromise other group functionality.

On the other hand, if web-only is easy and maintenance free, I'm okay,
...
Nothing is ever for free, but I think the core of this idea is minimal. When a group selects this option:

1) Alter the New Topic and Reply message poster so that they generate anonymous posts (no-reply instead of member's email in the From field).

2) Alter the inbound processing to reject posting by email.

3) Remove the Reply To = Sender (and Group and Sender) option, Private Reply, and the Email button in the Directory features. And any other place where the UI allows one member to post directly to another.

4) Remove the footer and digest links for Reply to Group and Reply to Sender from outbound messages.

I think that's it.

I don't think it is necessary to muck about with the Subscription settings or anything else in the system.

Shal


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 04:34 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
it is a flying something...
Haha!
 
--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:03 PM, Marv Waschke wrote:
if web-only is easy and maintenance free, I'm okay,
The issue I see with implementationis that it would require taking away group members' control over an element of their subscription page (namely, their delivery option). This is similar to another recent request that's been made (and strongly endorsed by several people) here, namely, giving moderators (and taking away from group members) control over the members' display name.

It would be unaesthetic (and probably hard to maintain) to take away either the delivery method just in order to implement "web-only," or just the display name in the groups that want that. BUT: if various elements of the subscription page had general options over member control or non-control in the group settings, I think it would be easy and not be weird.

In other words: group settings could include whether or not users could (1) control and change their own display name and (2) control and change their own delivery method. In a "web-only" group, (2) would be set to "no" automatically, and all the members' delivery methods would be set to either no-email or special notice (plus, as Shal mentioned, the reply-to would automatically be set to "group" and other options disabled, the directory would be disabled, and probably other little details would need to be taken care of). 

The general category in the Settings page could be something like "Subscription control," and would include whether or not users can change their display name or delivery method, with control over the delivery method automatically wiped out for a "web-only" group.
 
--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

 

J,

Groups.io is already a flying lawn mower. 😊

Well, it is a flying something...

Mark
          Fletcher's Blog Banner

Have a great weekend!

Shal


moderated Re: Photo search and clean up of the photos pages

Bruce Bowman
 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 05:08 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
This involved a lot of changes and the 'paint is still wet' so to speak. Please let me know if you see any bugs.
Sort by Name seems to be case-sensitive (e.g.: "Z" comes before "a"). Has it always been that way, and I just didn't notice?

Not really a problem, it just caught me by surprise.

Bruce


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

Groups.io is already a flying lawn mower. 😊


On Sep 28, 2018, at 3:03 PM, Marv Waschke <marv@...> wrote:

I have no issue with a 'web-only" option, as long as it does not compromise current or future email group functionality, but I doubt that I would use it. I like groups.io because it manages an email group well. There are web platforms, like Wordpress, for web sites with options, such as formatting, that I would not expect from groups.io with its email orientation. If a web-only option usurped development and support resources that could be devoted to improving groups.io as an email group platform, I would not  be happy. On the other hand, if web-only is easy and maintenance free, I'm okay, but in my experience, bolting wings on a lawn mower makes a flying lawn mower, not a jet plane; when you need a 747, go to Boeing, not Lawn-Boy.

--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

Marv Waschke
 

I have no issue with a 'web-only" option, as long as it does not compromise current or future email group functionality, but I doubt that I would use it. I like groups.io because it manages an email group well. There are web platforms, like Wordpress, for web sites with options, such as formatting, that I would not expect from groups.io with its email orientation. If a web-only option usurped development and support resources that could be devoted to improving groups.io as an email group platform, I would not  be happy. On the other hand, if web-only is easy and maintenance free, I'm okay, but in my experience, bolting wings on a lawn mower makes a flying lawn mower, not a jet plane; when you need a 747, go to Boeing, not Lawn-Boy.


moderated Photo search and clean up of the photos pages

 

Hi All,

I just rolled out photo search. As part of that, I cleaned up and modernized the photos pages a bit.

Right now, photo search will search all photos over all the albums in your group. If the match is with an album title or description, all photos in that album will be returned. I may change that in the future to do some sort of collapsing, but that will require some work. 

The search does partial word matches on photo names, but not on other fields.

This involved a lot of changes and the 'paint is still wet' so to speak. Please let me know if you see any bugs.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 01:36 PM, ro-esp wrote:
it could be a serious disadvantage
Of course. And for the groups that would consider it a disadvantage: don't use the feature.  But sometimes - even, often - moderators don't want their group members contacting each other offlist. The only option for that currently is to disable the private-reply option - which, BTW, many groups that I know of have done. But members in those groups can still use the email addresses they find. Disabling the emails - essentially making everyone "special notice only" or "no email" - is the next step up.

Right now, in fact, any moderator who wanted to go to the trouble could keep setting and re-setting everyone to those subscription options, in essence creating a "web-only" group by hand. But it would be an enormous PITA. I'm only suggesting formalizing and making it automatic and outside the members' control.
--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

ro-esp
 

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 05:25 PM, J_Catlady wrote:

The advantage is as I stated at the beginning: the ability to create an
"anonymous group," where members are not privy to the other members' > email addresses. 
Depending on the type of group, it could be a serious disadvantage that people cannot contact eachother "offlist", as in: lots of chitchat on-list that other people don't find interesting. Like on youtube

groetjes, Ronaldo


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 06:00 PM UTC:
 
ps If I misread your point please for the love of god.. er, groups.io...forgive me!!!


I don't know if you got it all or not. I do know that I didn't conclude that the feature wasn't important or desired, so if that's what you got, then that wasn't it.

My point is that your suggested method of implementation excludes membership via email. I think that's wrong and unnecessary to achieve the goal of anonymity.

Since I know that much was missed I'll lay it out again... because I really think it would work for you and be better than a via-web-only approach.

We already see Gio rewriting "From:" headers in some cases, so why not rewrite ALL "From:" headers in an "anonymous" group so that the "From:" address is always the address of the group. Then members - via web or via email - who know nothing about other headers can't see real email addresses and a simple reply goes nowhere but back to the group.

Once we get that far, we have to deal with other headers that can contain definitive identifying information that savvy members can see... often an email address. Those headers could be stripped. All we really need are Date:, To:, From:, Subject:... with "From:" having already been rewritten to be the address of the group.

Now we have a functioning anonymous group except the Owner who has a problem member who needs to be "handled" in some manner doesn't know who that member is because no email address is in the problem messages. The (or at least one) solution to that is to absolutely require some sort of "Display Name" (for lack of a better term for it) that's chosen by the member to be completely disconnected from his/her real identity... and preferably used nowhere else lest Google find it and tie it to a real person. With that the Owner can identify members sufficiently well to manage them if necessary, and individual members have no ability to determine real personal identity.

Via the above approach members can participate via the Gio interface or via email, where via your proposed approach it's web only. Also your approach didn't address the info hidden in headers not normally visible. Nor did it include a required "Display Name" to give each member an identity that my 16+ years of experience in managing groups says is vital to building a sense of community. (Maybe that was addressed in the years ago discussion, but not recently so let's not go there.)

So... with the above all goals for anonymity are met and no one is excluded from participation. The latter is a major improvement without which I'd oppose the concept of anonymous groups. Do them "right" - meaning don't make them exclusive of a large group whose characteristics don't deserve exclusion - or don't do them at all. A chacun son bout, is fine up until it denies the many via-email members an option to participate. Or so it seems to me.

My darn email program (Eudora) doesn't handle the non-ASCII part of UTF-8 well so I can't send (or at least can't render properly) accented characters in French. Lo siento. ;-)

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

toki
 

On 2018-09-28 5:06 p.m., J_Catlady wrote:
There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC.
It isn't that there are no simple solutions. Rather, there are no simple
solutions that also enable Groups.IO to meet the legal requirements of
some of the countries that subscribers are either residents of, or
citizens of, or otherwise under the legal jurisdiction of.

If you'd like the simple, albeit quasi-legal solution, look no further
than your local DarkNet web forum, or mailing list.

jonathon


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

ps If I misread your point please for the love of god.. er, groups.io...forgive me!!!


On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:51 AM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

I would not jump to the conclusion that the feature was not important or desired. There simply were perceived difficulties in achieving it.But  I’ll try not to rehash this. You could go back and look for the discussion if you’re interested.



On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC:
 
Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago.


I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. If years ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparently chose to either not implement it or put is so far on the back burner that it fell off the stove entirely. (As is his prerogative.)


There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don't participate in moderated groups. Etc.


Just for the record... GMF is a moderated group. And it would be the first moderated group I didn't unsubscribe from within a week... so we aren't so different in that respect. For others, à chacun son bout. ;-)

Jim H

--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

 

I would not jump to the conclusion that the feature was not important or desired. There simply were perceived difficulties in achieving it.But  I’ll try not to rehash this. You could go back and look for the discussion if you’re interested.



On Sep 28, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC:
 
Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago.


I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. If years ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparently chose to either not implement it or put is so far on the back burner that it fell off the stove entirely. (As is his prerogative.)


There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don't participate in moderated groups. Etc.


Just for the record... GMF is a moderated group. And it would be the first moderated group I didn't unsubscribe from within a week... so we aren't so different in that respect. For others, à chacun son bout. ;-)

Jim H

--
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: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 05:06 PM UTC:
 
Approaches to the anonymous group goal were hashed and rehashed endlessly when the idea first came up years ago.


I wasn't here "years ago" and neither were many others. If years ago mattered the topic would be dead... given that Mark apparently chose to either not implement it or put is so far on the back burner that it fell off the stove entirely. (As is his prerogative.)


There seemed to be no simple solution, IIRC. This just seemed like an easy one. Some people would, as you and someone else have already mentioned, not want to join such a group. But, chacon a son bout. I personally don't participate in moderated groups. Etc.


Just for the record... GMF is a moderated group. And it would be the first moderated group I didn't unsubscribe from within a week... so we aren't so different in that respect. For others, à chacun son bout. ;-)

Jim H

11741 - 11760 of 30101