Date   

moderated Re: Don't allow members to delete whole topics @strongsuggestion

 

Hi All,

In the new year, I will change message deleting to put up a deletion notice instead of just vanishing the message. I think/hope we can all agree that will be an improvement. As for other changes, I'd like to better understand user behavior around this. I'll do that off-list.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:18 PM J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
Sure, an option is fine. It’s frustrating to spend time and energy to fight so hard for something, and not just personally but with a genuine interest in the product; get a decision from Mark; and then have to fight the same battle over again with newcomers who have not had a chance to even familiarize themselves with the reasoning that went behind the original decision.

It does feel like there's been some re-litigating recently on beta@, and I can completely understand how that can feel demoralizing. Let's please drop this subject for now.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Happy Holidays!

Bob Bellizzi
 

Enjoy your holidays, Mark
--

Bob Bellizzi

Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
Founder & Executive Director, The Corneal Dystrophy Foundation


moderated Re: Happy Holidays!

Douglas Swearingen
 

Happy Holidays to you too Mark.

Doug


From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> on behalf of Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 4:28 PM
To: beta@groups.io
Subject: [beta] Happy Holidays!
 
Hi All,

I will be on holiday starting tomorrow, returning January 3rd. I will be monitoring the site as usual, but responses to email and support will be slowed. The next #changelog email will be sent on Friday, January 4th.

I hope you all have a happy holiday season!

Mark


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

Sure, an option is fine. It’s frustrating to spend time and energy to fight so hard for something, and not just personally but with a genuine interest in the product; get a decision from Mark; and then have to fight the same battle over again with newcomers who have not had a chance to even familiarize themselves with the reasoning that went behind the original decision. I have not noticed Mark particularly or spevifically encouraging this and hope he realizes the demoralizing effect it can have on those of us who fought so hard. I wish somehow that stare decisis applied in this situation. The ruling has already come down and then suddenly, here we go again...I doubt the arguments pro and con will be any different from what they were two years ago. There’s no reason for them to be. So why do it all over again?

On the plus side. we don’t have to implement it only to have it dismantled by marketing. 😉



On Dec 18, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:35 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It's not even debatable any more, really.
I believe Mark has always encouraged revisiting topics, especially when new people come along and have different, possibly better, ideas.  In this case, it could be an additional option for owners to use or not.

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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Duane
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:35 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
It's not even debatable any more, really.
I believe Mark has always encouraged revisiting topics, especially when new people come along and have different, possibly better, ideas.  In this case, it could be an additional option for owners to use or not.

Duane


moderated Re: Identically named topics

 

Jim, game of telephone. They would be allowed, but not allowed to start new threads. And Mark has done the programming necessary to detect this situation. Or I’m misunderstanding your question. It does not seem to be rocket science...???


On Dec 18, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Jim Higgins <HigginsJ@...> wrote:

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 05:44 PM UTC:
 
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced?

They would be threaded into the existing topic.


Seriously? Why would a message that isn't allowed be threaded into the existing topic? What's the point to considering disallowing off topic messages from being threaded into the existing topic if off topic messages will be threaded into the existing topic?

And far more importantly, as I asked above, how would such messages be detected? It would take some really sophisticated AI programming.

What am I missing?

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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

Right. And this is apparently Ground Hog Day. 🦊


On Dec 18, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Bruce Bowman <bruce.bowman@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:03 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Correct. I think that decision was an overreaction.
 
I've seen enough cases now where a member made an inconsequential spelling or grammatical fix which really didn't merit re-sending to everyone's email Inbox, the Edited flag on site would have been sufficient.
All I can say is, you're lucky. I have seen the flip side of this -- where the edits made are NOT inconsequential, and in fact changed the entire tone of the original post.

Unlike group owners, the vast majority of my subscribers do the most of their interaction via email. These folks do not routinely have access to the Edited flag, or previous message revisions...they don't even know such features exist. They only know what has appeared in their inbox.

Please consider how disconcerting it would be to reply to someone's email -- even perhaps quote part of the text -- only to eventually log on and find that the original post now bears no resemblance to the email they replied to. If we're going to allow people to edit their posts at all, forcing those edits to be resent to the group is one thing that groups.io got right.

My $0.02,
Bruce

--
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: Identically named topics

Jim Higgins
 

Received from J_Catlady at 12/18/2018 05:44 PM UTC:
 
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:43 AM, Jim Higgins wrote:
Assuming it isn't allowed, how will it be detected and enforced?

They would be threaded into the existing topic.


Seriously? Why would a message that isn't allowed be threaded into the existing topic? What's the point to considering disallowing off topic messages from being threaded into the existing topic if off topic messages will be threaded into the existing topic?

And far more importantly, as I asked above, how would such messages be detected? It would take some really sophisticated AI programming.

What am I missing?

Jim H


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

Bruce,

Please consider how disconcerting it would be to reply to someone's email -- even perhaps quote part of the text -- only to eventually log on and find that the original post now bears no resemblance to the email they replied to.

Most of my group members are predominantly email-using, as am I.

But if they eventually do log on there's no need to be disconcerted - there's the Edited flag and particularly the ability to compare revisions.

If I (as moderator) find that a member is abusing the edit w/o send ability I can always moderate or otherwise discipline the member.

If we're going to allow people to edit their posts at all, forcing those edits to be resent to the group is one thing that groups.io got right.
 
If you think it will cause trouble in your groups don't enable it (allow members to edit without re-send), or enable it and require such edits be moderated, or don't allow members to edit at all.

Shal


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 08:03 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
Correct. I think that decision was an overreaction.
 
I've seen enough cases now where a member made an inconsequential spelling or grammatical fix which really didn't merit re-sending to everyone's email Inbox, the Edited flag on site would have been sufficient.
All I can say is, you're lucky. I have seen the flip side of this -- where the edits made are NOT inconsequential, and in fact changed the entire tone of the original post.

Unlike group owners, the vast majority of my subscribers do the most of their interaction via email. These folks do not routinely have access to the Edited flag, or previous message revisions...they don't even know such features exist. They only know what has appeared in their inbox.

Please consider how disconcerting it would be to reply to someone's email -- even perhaps quote part of the text -- only to eventually log on and find that the original post now bears no resemblance to the email they replied to. If we're going to allow people to edit their posts at all, forcing those edits to be resent to the group is one thing that groups.io got right.

My $0.02,
Bruce


moderated Re: Happy Holidays!

Leeni
 

Have a very Happy Holiday!!!
Thanks for all you do in making Groups IO a great place to house my groups.
Enjoy your time off!
Ilene  
 
 
 
 

-------Original Message-------
 
Date: 12/18/2018 5:28:54 PM
Subject: [beta] Happy Holidays!
 
Hi All,

I will be on holiday starting tomorrow, returning January 3rd. I will be monitoring the site as usual, but responses to email and support will be slowed. The next #changelog email will be sent on Friday, January 4th.

I hope you all have a happy holiday season!

Mark
 


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

Ken,

I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited, but that’s none of my business!  But, not allowing members to Edit, and choose to Save w/o Resending to the grp seems counter productive.  

Agreed. I'd like to be able to enable that in my groups. Possibly with an option to cause such edits to be moderated.

But my understanding is that common folk don’t have that option?

Correct. I think that decision was an overreaction.
I've seen enough cases now where a member made an inconsequential spelling or grammatical fix which really didn't merit re-sending to everyone's email Inbox, the Edited flag on site would have been sufficient.

Shal


moderated Re: Happy Holidays!

Bruce Bowman
 

Sounds good, Mark.

Groups.io is working great, despite our incessant bickering over trifles.

Take a well-deserved break.

Bruce


moderated Re: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 01:30 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
I have no clue why a grp would not allow msgs to be edited
After much debate here over the option to disable editing, Mark finally implemented the option, and soon afterwards even he saw the value in it, as evidenced by his starting to use the option. You can't edit messages in beta.

There are many reasons why letting members edit messages is undesirable to many, many group owners. In fact, all the groups I'm in - and I'm in a lot - have now disabled it.

If you want to understand why, it's best to go back and search on past threads here rather than open the conversation again. It's not even debatable any more, really. 
 
--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

 

The issue is non-moderators editing without sending. That’s unacceptable and was never even under serious consideration.


On Dec 18, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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

Biting my tongue is not working, back into the fray ...

I like "edit and save without sending" for fixing typos and so forth. I even occasionally make a big enough mess on a post that if the opportunity is available and I think that deleting the post won't make things worse, then I do.

I cannot say that I would trust everyone else though. That is why I am very happy that edited messages are flagged as such.

--
Gerald

--
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: Why not allow Edit w/o resending

Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:50 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
Allowing members to edit and save without sending would be 10 times worse. We have been over and over and over this years ago. Please let's not do it again!
--
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

Biting my tongue is not working, back into the fray ...

I like "edit and save without sending" for fixing typos and so forth. I even occasionally make a big enough mess on a post that if the opportunity is available and I think that deleting the post won't make things worse, then I do.

I cannot say that I would trust everyone else though. That is why I am very happy that edited messages are flagged as such.

--
Gerald


moderated Re: Identically named topics

Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
If you're referring to messages posted via the website, then this was by design. The thought process being that someone using the 'New Topic' post feature definitely wanted a new topic. This was different than messages received via email, where we did try to merge them into existing topics.
 
I've changed it so that if someone posts a new topic via the web, it's treated the same as if we had received an email, and should be combined to an existing, recent topic of the same name.
Looks like we may have GMF wiki entry to update: https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki/Avoiding-threading-topics---threading-algorithm 

I preferred things the previous way (ref: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/12491). If someone who is reading online wants to add to an existing thread, then they should reply to that thread. They should not be using the New Topic button.

Bruce


moderated Happy Holidays!

 

Hi All,

I will be on holiday starting tomorrow, returning January 3rd. I will be monitoring the site as usual, but responses to email and support will be slowed. The next #changelog email will be sent on Friday, January 4th.

I hope you all have a happy holiday season!

Mark


moderated Re: Add permalinks to Wiki pages

 

Mark,

Currently there is a link icon on wiki pages, which points to the URL for the wiki page (with the wiki title).

Yes, that one I want immutable.
It seems that there'd be confusion with two different kinds of permalinks. 

I wouldn't have an icon for both types. I was thinking that going forward the title links one would only get via copying the address bar while visiting the wiki page. In any case I don't want to break any existing title links.

Maybe I need to do what Wikipedia does: changing the title of a page is a bit more of a process and generates redirect URLs from the old title to the new title.

That's an idea too. But a part of my annoyance with the title links is that many users don't think of the title in terms of it being used for access. So they make long ones, with punctuation and whatnot. In addition to changing them without thinking.

Maybe instead of a serial number for the permalink, allow the page creator to assign a Page Name (which becomes its permalink) with a short text, required to be group-unique; explicitly distinct from the page Title. I try to treat them that way anyway. That text could have URL-compatible character rules so that you don't subsequently have to deal with encoding them (and we don't have to deal with the ugliness of URL-encoded punctuation in the URL). A little like the distinction between a Group Name (aka email address) and a Group Title.

Shal

11521 - 11540 of 30656