Date   

moderated Re: Google calendar integration #suggestion

 

No there is no way to sync a Google Calendar yet. I am on the free option but maybe someone can report if it is in the paid version.


moderated Re: Facebook integration update frequency increase?

Toby Kraft
 

Yes that is correct.  


moderated Re: Google calendar integration #suggestion

Toby Kraft
 

These features are already present.
From the Help page, "You can get help with Groups.io from the articles below. If you'd like more assistance or have questions, please check out the Group Managers Forum."

see -> https://groups.io/static/features:
"Facebook - Post to your group whenever there is an update to a Facebook Page.", see Admin -> Integrations
see -> https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Sync-with-your-Google-Calendar

Please use this forum to request new features
Thanks
Toby


moderated Re: Facebook integration update frequency increase?

Susan Kaiden <suekaiden@...>
 

Question - it sounds like the Facebook integration goes one way - FB to Groups.io.  Is that right?

Thanks -
Sue Kaiden


moderated Google calendar integration #suggestion

Susan Kaiden <suekaiden@...>
 

Hi Everyone - I'm trying to determine if there is a way for us to sync our calendar with a google calendar.  We are not an Enterprise account but have a website that we'd like to share information with - specifically about upcoming meetings - and we're using a Google Calendar to publicize our events to our website.  We also have a Facebook group and would like to be able to integrate with that group.  Anyone else looking for this type of feature?


moderated Facebook integration update frequency increase?

Michael Morris
 

We are currently migrating our society yahoo newsgroup to Groups.io. 
I love the Facebook integration feature. Once a month we give our members very short notice as to whether or not a weather-dependent event is going ahead or not. I would love it if rather than having to post this news on both Facebook and our newsgroup pages, I could just post it on Facebook and the newsgroup would be automatically updated within say 10 minutes.
I gather that the Facebook page update cycle is presently twice an hour. Is there any way that we could a feature to allow newsgroup owners to configure these updates to happen more frequently?
Thanks


moderated Re: Suggestion: Ability to send PM from a member's profile page #suggestion

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:38 PM, Duane wrote:
You can show full email addresses in a group by selecting that option at Settings, Privacy, Hide Email Addresses In Archives.  If the archives are public, non-members will still see the figleaf, but members that are signed in will see the email address.  When the option was added, it defaulted to masking because that's what it had been.
Duane,

            Thank you very much for having taken the time to post this.   It's well-nigh impossible to keep up with the many "under the hood" changes at Groups.io, particularly if they're not something one uses with any frequency.

             I hope that this option now defaults to "not masked" for newly created groups.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


moderated Re: Make "Resend Conformation" an option on the Pending Members "Action" button. #suggestion

 

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 06:52 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
If they were all folded into the dropdown then some of them would have to either automagically disappear or be deactivated
Exactly right, realized that immediately after sending.
 
--
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: Make "Resend Conformation" an option on the Pending Members "Action" button. #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 05:35 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I think in general it's very confusing as to which member actions are included in the dropdown vs. which are at the bottom of the page.
Which buttons appear (obviously) depend on which member view you are in. For example, it strikes me as appropriate that the "resend bounce probe" button does not appear if you haven't filtered the display for Bouncing members.

If they were all folded into the dropdown then some of them would have to either automagically disappear or be deactivated. What happens if you were in the main display and checked the boxes for an active subscriber, one with a Bouncing tag, and a third with an NC tag? Which dropdown menu items would you have activated in that case?

While opportunities for improvement may exist, in practice I'm not convinced that putting everything in the dropdown will be any less confusing.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Moderator privileges

 

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:59 AM, Max H. wrote:
It's not so much a matter of trust as a matter of security.
It's both. But it's also semantics. I have been requesting for a long time (as have several others here) the ability to allow mods to see the member "notes" page as an option rather than automatically (along with the other options already available). That's because I simply don't want all moderators to see the member notes. Often, they are confidential between me and the group member. Often, they involve group dynamics that I don't want certain moderators to know about. I would like to be able to have a class of moderators ("helpers"? "admins"? whatever  - perhaps a different role, or class of moderator) that are willing and able to help with some administrative tasks, but whom I specifically do not want to have access to certain classes of group info. This has nothing to do with security.
 
--
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: Moderator privileges

 

Max, you took great pains to explain this issue; I think you mentioned a lot of reasons for individual privilege attribution. I´d like to summarize it like this:

 

There are so many different group types and resulting needs, groups with higher and lower frequentation, groups with more or less delicate subjects, big ones and small ones. And there are moderators with different characteristics and insights (f.e. in human nature), some are very fit in technical matters, some in judgement and specialized knowledge, they also might have different time limits etc. So it´s not necessariliy a matter of trust but one of distribution according to capacities and talents as is done in many teams in “the real world”.  

 

.….therefore I also plead for the possibility for owners to differentiate between moderator´s functionalities and privileges.

 

Victoria


moderated Re: Moderator privileges

Max H.
 

It's not so much a matter of trust as a matter of security. I mean, if you trust your moderators, why not just give them your Groups.io login? Well, first because sometimes it helps to see who did what, but also that's more of a security risk. There's no reason to give everyone the ability to delete the group, so we don't allow moderators to do that, unless you trust them enough to be co-owners with you. So we already have a tiered system, even though there are only three tiers right now. I say three because you can also block the public from doing some things that members can do. 

It may not be a problem for most groups, but if you have a large enough group of people who have only met via the internet to communicate about a shared interest, it might be wise to only give them access to what they need to do. The more people have access to secure areas that they don't need, the more likely that a compromised account could really compromise your group, too. It's just good security practice.

Do we need this level of granularity? It probably depends on the group, but I'm guessing most don't, and for those that do, they can get by alright 99% of the time without it. That's the way security works, you usually don't need it...until you do. As someone who manages government websites to pay the bills, of course I lean towards granularity -- the owner or owners should be able to assign the access each moderator needs to accomplish their part, no more, no less. (That includes expanded access for "backup" mods who might not normally, say, access the database, but are trained to do so in case the DB mod goes away on vacation.)


moderated Re: Make "Resend Conformation" an option on the Pending Members "Action" button. #suggestion

 

I think in general it's very confusing as to which member actions are included in the dropdown vs. which are at the bottom of the page. It might be preferable to just include them all in the dropdown.
--
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: Moderator privileges

 

That’s true, too. 😊


On Oct 14, 2018, at 12:43 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
go with more roles
Seems to me you'd need quite a few.  Say you have a moderator that you want to handle Files and Photos, another for Files and approvals, and yet another for Photos and Wikis.  Using the a la carte method would allow that much easier than all the possible combinations of roles.

Duane

--
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: Moderator privileges

Duane
 

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Brian Vogel wrote:
go with more roles
Seems to me you'd need quite a few.  Say you have a moderator that you want to handle Files and Photos, another for Files and approvals, and yet another for Photos and Wikis.  Using the a la carte method would allow that much easier than all the possible combinations of roles.

Duane


moderated Make "Resend Conformation" an option on the Pending Members "Action" button. #suggestion

Charlie McB
 

Being relatively new as a Groups.io owner, it took me a while to find out how to resend a confirmation message to a pending member.  The placement of this function (at the bottom of the member settings page) was not intuitive to me.  Can this "Resend Confirmation Message" be added as an option on the "Action" drop-down menu on the Pending Members page?  That was where I naturally looked. "Resend Pending Membership Notice" is an "Action" option, so it seems reasonable to put "Resend Confirmation Message" there too.

Thanks,

                 -- Charlie


moderated Re: Moderator privileges

 

I agree and prefer the roles idea.


On Oct 14, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
There are some group members I trust to handle certain tasks, and others I trust with more. So I second the request being made here. I may have already made it in the past.
Like I said, I have no objection to this.

That being said, I don't know that the "pick and choose from among a menu for ala carte functions" is the way I'd go.  I'd be more inclined to go with more roles that each have successively more permissions.

I'll admit that this is just my personal preference, and I have no real horse in this race.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)

--
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: Moderator privileges

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:53 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
There are some group members I trust to handle certain tasks, and others I trust with more. So I second the request being made here. I may have already made it in the past.
Like I said, I have no objection to this.

That being said, I don't know that the "pick and choose from among a menu for ala carte functions" is the way I'd go.  I'd be more inclined to go with more roles that each have successively more permissions.

I'll admit that this is just my personal preference, and I have no real horse in this race.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


moderated Re: Moderator privileges

Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
 

Bob,

         Thanks for the words of support.  One of the groups on which I'm a moderator on groups.io has me do one, and only one thing:  manage the archive.  This is by agreement (no formal paperwork necessary in this case, but I see why it would be in yours) and the group's owner and other moderator can still call upon me on an as needed basis to "pick up" for them when they will be away (which has never happened since both have never been absent at the same time).

          When it comes to moderators, you have to trust those you chose for the role impilictly, including that they will exercise only the powers you agree to, even if the software in a given venue gives them broader powers.

           Software can become virtually impossible to manage if it allows each and every possible option to be configured.  One can see this in a number of office suites, where no one knows anything near to each and every option that's available and it's often very difficult to find the ones you actually want when you want them.  It's not that this style cannot be created, but it has its pitfalls, and they're not insignificant.

            On another site where I moderate there are "levels" above the moderator that do have even broader powers.  Moderators there cannot ban members nor suspend posting privileges, while the roles global moderator, site admin, and admin (which is the big kahuna - the "God Role" that can alter anything and everything) all can.  And, of course, you have to trust those who are in those roles, too.
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763 
The terrible state of public education has paid huge dividends in ignorance.  Huge.  We now have a country that can be told blatant lies — easily checkable, blatant lies — and I’m not talking about the covert workings of the CIA. When we have a terrorist attack, on September 11, 2001 with 19 men — 15 of them are Saudis — and five minutes later the whole country thinks they’re from Iraq — how can you have faith in the public? This is an easily checkable fact. The whole country is like the O.J. Simpson jurors.

      ~ Fran Lebowitz in Ruminator Magazine interview with Susannah McNeely (Aug/Sept 2005)


moderated Re: Moderator privileges

 

In answer to Brian's point about trusting moderators: there are degrees of trust. You might ask in a parallel fashion, why make some moderators co-owners and others not? The levels of trust are already built in to that extent, at least. And I would like more levels to be built in. There are some group members I trust to handle certain tasks, and others I trust with more. So I second the request being made here. I may have already made it in the past. 
--
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

12061 - 12080 of 30656