Date   

moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 06:21 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

The user would quickly learn that a given group doesn't accept email replies (or posts)
Huh? I thought yours and Jim's idea is to allow emails replies and posts. That's what distinguishes your implementation from mine. By contrast, mine would NOT allow users to do anything by email, and yes, they would very quickly learn which is which. I think they would not as quickly understand why, in some groups, the email addresses are phony and in others they're not.
 
--
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,

I also think the other suggested implementation (sending emails but
somehow hiding the senders' actual email addresses) could be extremely
confusing to users.
I don't think so.

The user would quickly learn that a given group doesn't accept email replies (or posts) in much the same way that he/she learns that certain other groups don't accept attachments, or accept only plain text. It is just part of the "culture" of the group.

Shal


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 06:11 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Both are more complicated than the minimum
What??? Mine seems like the utmost in simplicity. :)
 
--
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 10/1/2018 12:54 AM UTC:

I agree that yours is complicated but I strongly disagree that mine is "exclusionary" any more than any other kind of groups that certain people, due to their tastes, may not want to join is exclusionary.

Really? I think it's one thing to create a group devoted to cats that someone like me wouldn't want to join because my taste doesn't run to cats. It's quite something else to create a group that excludes people based on the method they might prefer to use to access that group.

It's one thing to exclude people from (for example) a restaurant because they're shirtless and shoeless, but quite another thing to exclude them because they arrived in a red car. Yet both are a matter of taste to those potential restaurant patrons.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

Jim,

Quite frankly... and I could be wrong... but I don't see Gio
implementing either option any time soon. Yours is exclusionary and
mine is fairly complicated.
Both are more complicated than the minimum I think is needed for an anonymous group, which is what I thought J was originally after.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/18533

The only defect I see in my anonymous scheme is that all messages appear to be from the same no-reply address. That is, something like:

From: "Display Name" <groupname+noreply@groups.io>
That's not too serious given that you have to go to the site to reply anyway, but it would be nicer if something could be put into the From address to distinguish posters (without revealing email addresses).

To do that I think one would have to enforce a mandatory User Name selection by each member then one has something like:
From: "Display Name" <user=groupname@groups.io>
Maybe, to avoid the complication of enforcing a user name selection that could be left optional and "noreply" used if the user hasn't set his/her User Name. Then it would be up to moderators and peer pressure to convince members to set a unique User Name in their account, if the group cares about that.

Shal


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 05:49 PM, Jim Higgins wrote:
What is the purpose of web-only other than to permit making the group anonymous?
Well, that's the main reason. But I like the idea on its own more and more. For one thing, my suggested implementation generalizes to giving moderators sole control over certain aspects of members' subscription options, such as the display name, already requested. I also think the other suggested implementation (sending emails but somehow hiding the senders' actual email addresses) could be extremely confusing to users. In one group, the emails are legitimate email addresses. But mysteriously, in another of their groups, the email addresses are phony. I think that could create havoc. The web-only concept strikes me as very clean and transparent.

I think this is getting repetitive ....
 
--
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 agree that yours is complicated but I strongly disagree that mine is ‘exclusionary’ any more than any other kind of groups that certain people, due to their tastes, may not want to join is exclusionary.

On Sep 30, 2018, at 5:47 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/30/2018 11:23 PM UTC:

I don't consider the no-email approach disenfranchisement.

OK, so if you don't like that term, what else would you call denying subscribership to "via email" subscribers that's both accurate and doesn't translate to the same thing?


I have no comment or opinion one way or the other on your approach. I could see implementing both. In my approach, moderators would have options for control over various aspects of member subscriptions, including display name and delivery method.

Yes, but... my approach includes a mandatory display name selected by the subscribers... who are the ones in the best position to pick one they like. And as for delivery method... that aspect is unimportant under my approach unless you want to disenfranchise "via email" subscribers by denying them delivery via email. I don't much care that that latter is offered to an Owner as an OPTION, but under your suggestion as stated previously it's the ONLY option. That's total disenfranchisement of "via email" subscribers. I don't care if group owners want to do that on a group by group basis, but I would object to Gio making it the only option.

Quite frankly... and I could be wrong... but I don't see Gio implementing either option any time soon. Yours is exclusionary and mine is fairly complicated.


So it's really a different kettle of fish and could be implemented even without the anonymous group concept,

I don't understand the significance of that last part, but never mind.

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 10/1/2018 12:09 AM UTC:

In fact, it's an idea for a web-only group, as I said in the original message. It could as a fringe benefit be used to create an anonymous group. I am actually more wedded to the web-only idea than the anonymous group idea.

Why? What is the purpose of web-only other than to permit making the group anonymous?

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/30/2018 11:23 PM UTC:

I don't consider the no-email approach disenfranchisement.

OK, so if you don't like that term, what else would you call denying subscribership to "via email" subscribers that's both accurate and doesn't translate to the same thing?


I have no comment or opinion one way or the other on your approach. I could see implementing both. In my approach, moderators would have options for control over various aspects of member subscriptions, including display name and delivery method.

Yes, but... my approach includes a mandatory display name selected by the subscribers... who are the ones in the best position to pick one they like. And as for delivery method... that aspect is unimportant under my approach unless you want to disenfranchise "via email" subscribers by denying them delivery via email. I don't much care that that latter is offered to an Owner as an OPTION, but under your suggestion as stated previously it's the ONLY option. That's total disenfranchisement of "via email" subscribers. I don't care if group owners want to do that on a group by group basis, but I would object to Gio making it the only option.

Quite frankly... and I could be wrong... but I don't see Gio implementing either option any time soon. Yours is exclusionary and mine is fairly complicated.


So it's really a different kettle of fish and could be implemented even without the anonymous group concept,

I don't understand the significance of that last part, but never mind.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 04:23 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
it’s really a different kettle of fish
In fact, it's an idea for a web-only group, as I said in the original message. It could as a fringe benefit be used to create an anonymous group. I am actually more wedded to the web-only idea than the anonymous group idea.
 
--
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 don’t consider the no-email approach disenfranchisement. I have no comment or opinion one way or the other on your approach. I could see implementing both. In my approach, moderators would have options for control over various aspects of member subscriptions, including display name and delivery method. So it’s really a different kettle of fish and could be implemented even without the anonymous group concept,

On Sep 30, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 9/30/2018 10:42 PM UTC:

It's unclear whom you're quoting.

Yeah... the Groups.io method of quoting involves simply indenting, which doesn't survive in a reply that isn't sent in HTML format... and I forgot to add an extra quote mark in front of your contribution. Mea culpa.


I am strongly in favor of the anonymous group concept, however it's implemented.

Perhaps you would comment on my alternate approach to implementation then? It doesn't disenfranchise via email subscribers as your approach does.

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 9/30/2018 10:42 PM UTC:

It's unclear whom you're quoting.

Yeah... the Groups.io method of quoting involves simply indenting, which doesn't survive in a reply that isn't sent in HTML format... and I forgot to add an extra quote mark in front of your contribution. Mea culpa.


I am strongly in favor of the anonymous group concept, however it's implemented.

Perhaps you would comment on my alternate approach to implementation then? It doesn't disenfranchise via email subscribers as your approach does.

Jim H


moderated Re: Easier way to delete photos #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/30/2018 03:39 AM UTC:

Could there be a "delete" checkbox below each thumbnail, so that you can check a bunch of them at a time and delete them in one fell swoop?

This is how iPhones manage photo albums and it's really convenient.

Jim H


moderated Re: Extend "Unsubscribed for spam" link expiration

Jim Higgins
 

Received from Duane at 9/29/2018 03:41 PM UTC:

It has been suggested that the 3 day expiration of the resubscribe link be extended to 7 or 10 days.

This could only help... sure couldn't hurt.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 9/28/2018 10:55 PM UTC:

Groups.io is already a flying lawn mower.

I guess one could make that argument, but it's a really well running flying lawn mower. And from the myriad of feature suggestions I'd say there are plenty of people who really do want a flying lawn mower. ;-)

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

 

It’s unclear whom you’re quoting. I am strongly in favor of the anonymous group concept, however it’s implemented.

On Sep 30, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Received from ro-esp at 9/28/2018 08:36 PM UTC:

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

That may very well come to be but it's not a good reason to reject the notion of an anonymous group to those who want one. Group Owners would need to deal with too much chitchat however they choose to, and those who don't like the result would be free to unsubscribe. To each his own, with those not liking it being the ones who need to change... or leave.

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 08:48 PM UTC:

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 01:36 PM, ro-esp wrote:
it could be a serious disadvantage

Disabling the emails - essentially making everyone "special notice only" or "no email" - is the next step up.

Only if "the next step up" is to deny membership via email, thus disenfranchising a lot of otherwise worthwhile members. There's a better solution.

Jim H


moderated Re: Web-only group #suggestion

Jim Higgins
 

Received from ro-esp at 9/28/2018 08:36 PM UTC:

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

That may very well come to be but it's not a good reason to reject the notion of an anonymous group to those who want one. Group Owners would need to deal with too much chitchat however they choose to, and those who don't like the result would be free to unsubscribe. To each his own, with those not liking it being the ones who need to change... or leave.

Jim H


moderated Re: Direct Add in a Subgroup

 

Mark,

I wrote:
2) A bulk Direct-Add ability. Rather than checking hundreds of boxes
(and double-checking that I got just the right ones) it would be
easier for me to copy a column of email addresses from excel to
identify the members who signed up for the additional activity
represented by the subgroup.
Never mind.

It turns out I can do this with Direct Add on the primary group. I get an error for each member who's already in the primary group, but they do get added to the subgroup checkmarked on the Direct Add page.

And as a bonus, from my point of view, they don't get the "You've been added", presumably because of the error on the primary group add.

But I as moderator still get the notification:
"New Subscriber To subgroup@example.groups.io"

Perfect!

Shal


moderated Easier way to delete photos #suggestion

 

Following on the comments in the other photo thread, about deleting photos one by one: I embarked on a cleanup project for my group's emailed photos and have quickly become bogged down in an exponential process, namely: I can only click on and delete one photo at a time, and after refreshing the page (which is the only way to click on and delete the next photo), I end up back at the top of the page and am faced with traversing the list again down to where I was. With hundreds of photos, this is becoming sisyphean.

Could there be a "delete" checkbox below each thumbnail, so that you can check a bunch of them at a time and delete them in one fell swoop? 
--
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

10461 - 10480 of 28856