Date   

moderated Re: Limit for number of invites that can be sent out without approval, enhacement request

Andy Wedge
 

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 09:24 AM, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
I found later in the evening that my invitations all passed through. I guess someone reviewed and decided it is ok to let hem go.
Yes, the process is designed to stop abuse of the process.

See https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum/message/14981?

Andy


moderated Re: Limit for number of invites that can be sent out without approval, enhacement request

YT9TP - Pedja
 

I'm guessing, but perhaps that time, the filter only produced 20 or less email addresses that were not already group members.
I found later in the evening that my invitations all passed through. I guess someone reviewed and decided it is ok to let hem go.

Also, I noticed that indeed it was more than 20 new emails. It might be that groups.io already works as I suggested but it does not display proper info so it is confusing for the admin.

If you send out 100 invitation requests, then even if the feature enhancement you want is implemented (and it may already be there,
from your comment above), if more than 20 of them are not members, you still run into the same constraint. I don't know if groups.io can help you with this.
That would not be the problem as that would be significantly smaller number of emails and I could handle them manually, especially, because I would see which email are new - groups.io, while processing invitations, displays statuses so it is clear which emails are skipped as already on the list.


moderated Re: suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

YT9TP - Pedja
 

I second this. I also made similar suggestion some time ago.

Suspension is needed option. We also have an organization and members may follow read-only group. If someone does not extend membership we prefer to suspend him form group until he reinstates as member.

We do not want o ban him fro obvious reasons (ban is punishment for vicious acts which is not a case), we cannot just disable his posting because list is read only, members do not post, and we cannot delete him form the list because we use notes for additional info about member and deleting them would cause lost of such info.

I also second suggestion for optional temporary suspensions/bans. that would obviously be useful.


moderated Re: New feed page

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

I've noticed that the group order listed on my feed page is different to that listed on the Your Groups drop-down menu and different again to the order shown on the mobile site.

In addition, the icon picture for the beta group, the head on shot of an elephant, which is second on my feed page, is carried through to all groups that I have not specifically set a group icon for - again different to the mobile site.

A consistent order and use of icons would be good.

Thanks,
Andy


moderated Re: suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

 

Seems like groundhog day.
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/25140223?

--
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: suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

 

If a temporary ban/suspension feature is added, I would also like to suggest a way to temporarily suspend a member for a defined period of time, after which the suspension will automatically be lifted. For example, if someone is getting out of hand, and you know they just need a little cooling off time but would otherwise be a valued member of the group, you could suspend the member for, say, two days. If the member tries to access the group via the web in that time, it would show that the member is suspended, until a given date/time. Access via email would bounce with the same message. Two days later, the member could once again access the group as normal, without further action by a moderator/owner.

JohnF


moderated Re: #calendar #suggestion #feature Improved functionality for Calendar Cancellations #suggestion

 

Hi Kenny,

I've just pushed some changes to the calendar. Now, when you delete events, you're offered the ability to send a message to the group. The message will contain an ICS attachment that should do the correct thing to keep other calendars (specifically GCal) sync'ed with our calendar.

If you cancel the entire event or a single event in a repeating event, the message to the group will be tagged with #cal-cancelled. Otherwise, the message to the group will be tagged with #cal-invite, just like if you were changing the description of the event.

I also fixed a 'bug' with repeating events that were specified to end on a specific date, instead of a number of times. The generated ICS file, while looking right to me, left off the final event on GCal. It now behaves correctly.

Please let me know if you see anything amiss. This stuff is tricky.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: make rejected-subscription notice semi-manual instead of automatic

 

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:35 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
I would do away with the "Active" designation for all but the automatic notices
Sorry for the stream of consciousness - I'm thinking in spurts. Instead of doing away with the designation, the word "Active" could (and, I think, SHOULD) be replaced with the word "Default" for the non-automatic type 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: make rejected-subscription notice semi-manual instead of automatic

 

(Well, the Welcome message could be chosen at the time of subscription approval for restricted groups, but I think that would be overkill.:)
--
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 rejected-subscription notice semi-manual instead of automatic

 

The only four types that should be automatic IMO (and therefore have an Active designation available) are Welcome, Pending subscription, Group guidelines, and Good-bye. These are the four that the mod has no control over.
--
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 rejected-subscription notice semi-manual instead of automatic

 

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:12 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
f I understand correctly, this would involve doing away with the Rejected Subscription member notice altogether, rolling any existing ones into a pick-list like the one used for message moderation, and making whatever one happens to be Active a default. Are we still on the same page?
Not quite on same page, but close. :) You wouldn't have to eliminate any Rejected Subscription member notice. (BTW you say "the" notice, when there may be more than one). You keep them all, just like you can have multiple Rejected Message notices to choose from.

I'm just not quite clear on the proposed implementation yet. 
I think it would be a triviality. There's already a confimation dialog box. There is also a confirmation dialog box for rejected messages, but that one, besides yes or no, contains a composition box for a message (from which you can instead pick an existing notice of that type from a dropdown). Just add the composition box for the confirmation of a rejected subscription. It would look exactly like the one for Rejected Message, except for one word ("reject this one subscription?" instead of "reject this one message?"). The log entry, like the log entry for rejected messages, would include the message sent. Simple.

Off the top of my head, the only automatic messages should be the welcome and pending member notifications. The rest should allow real-time choice of which message (if any).

Another aspect to this is use of the "Active" designation for notifications of the type you can choose at the time (such as, currently, Rejected Message). It seems at first glance to be fairly meaningless for non-automatic type notifications, because you in effect select the "active" one at the time of doing the action. It does provide some incremental convenience by plopping the active notice into the composition box, but I think that's at the expense of clarity. I would do away with the "Active" designation for all but the automatic notices (of which, if my suggestion is implemented, Rejected Subscription would no longer be one).

--
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: suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

 

If you upgrade to premium, you can reinstate them (“Direcf Add”) without issuing an invitation.


On Mar 13, 2019, at 9:59 AM, L. J. <l.j.hanke@...> wrote:

Thanks for your reply.  The NP was suggested in the managers forum.  I tried that but it did not accomplish what I was trying to do.  We would like to prevent all access to group content until they would send in their annual renewal to our organization.  This can be accomplished by banning them but when you unban the member, they are removed from the group and have to be invited or they have to ask to subscribe again.  If the ban function would have an option to permanently or temporary ban the member.  With a temporary ban, it would seem that unbanning them could allow them to automatically go back to the active members list.  Permanent ban would function as it does now with removing them from the 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: make rejected-subscription notice semi-manual instead of automatic

Bruce Bowman
 

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 11:50 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
Specifically, the request is that rejected subscriptions be handled in the same way as rejected messages, namely: allow selection of a particular rejection notice (or other hand-typed message) at the time of rejection, rather than have an "active" notice set and needing change (or at least checking) every time a subscription is rejected.
The logic behind this is irrefutable, I'm just not quite clear on the proposed implementation yet.

If I understand correctly, this would involve doing away with the Rejected Subscription member notice altogether, rolling any existing ones into a pick-list like the one used for message moderation, and making whatever one happens to be Active a default. Are we still on the same page?

I assume this would appear on a custom screen for member review only. Which among the other features present during message moderation would you also have show up? Would we want a list of people in Pending status so you can go through them one by one? How about an option to display +owner messages so you can view responses to the Pending Subscription notice?

How could this be implemented without creating confusion among the majority of groups that only need one rejection message? 

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

L. J.
 

Thanks for your reply.  The NP was suggested in the managers forum.  I tried that but it did not accomplish what I was trying to do.  We would like to prevent all access to group content until they would send in their annual renewal to our organization.  This can be accomplished by banning them but when you unban the member, they are removed from the group and have to be invited or they have to ask to subscribe again.  If the ban function would have an option to permanently or temporary ban the member.  With a temporary ban, it would seem that unbanning them could allow them to automatically go back to the active members list.  Permanent ban would function as it does now with removing them from the group.


moderated Re: Limit for number of invites that can be sent out without approval, enhacement request

 

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 08:53 AM, YT9TP - Pedja wrote:
I did this invitation sending several times before, with list of few hundreds of mails and had no issue like this.
I'm guessing, but perhaps that time, the filter only produced 20 or less email addresses that were not already group members.

I cannot distinguish which emails are already members of group on groups.io and which are not.
That seems to be your real problem. If you send out 100 invitation requests, then even if the feature enhancement you want is implemented (and it may already be there, from your comment above), if more than 20 of them are not members, you still run into the same constraint. I don't know if groups.io can help you with this.

--
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 Limit for number of invites that can be sent out without approval, enhacement request

YT9TP - Pedja
 

I tried to send invitations to group I administer and got into problem.

"You have reached the limit for number of invites that can be sent out without approval. Once your new invites have been approved, they will be sent out. You will receive a notification when this happens."

I lurked around and found out that is the feature to prevent spammers to quickly create large spam lists. I also found out there is limitation of 20 invites per 24 hours.

That is strange, I did this invitation sending several times before, with list of few hundreds of mails and had no issue like this.

I have no problem with the limitation. I understand it's need and accept it as necessity.

That said, here is my problem. I do try to upload invitations using list of several hundred of emails but most of them are already on the list. I would like if it i is possible, to change site behavior to apply limitation after it filters out emails that are already on the list.

My problem is that we have membership application and all I can get from it is list of all email addresses of all members. I cannot distinguish which emails are already members of group on groups.io and which are not. I relay on groups.io feature that it checks emails and disregards emails that are already members of the group and sends invitations only for new ones.

That means each time I have to send invitations I have to use complete list even if there are only few new members to add (and usually it is just a few). I guess it is clear that this limitation makes my life as group admin miserable. Simple change to first disregard emails that are already on the list and force limitation only for emails that actually have to be used for invitations would save me as i guess that way I would never hit limitation..


moderated Re: suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

 

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 06:06 PM, L. J. wrote:
We just want some kind of temporary disabling his group membership
Is your goal to prevent the member from having access to all group content, or just to prevent them from posting messages? If the latter, you can set their posting status to NP (can't post).
 
--
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 suspend/reinstate user rather than ban/unban/resubscribe

L. J.
 

From the group managers forum: 

"I administer group for organization. It is for member only. It often happens that someone looses member status and we want to stop that persons group membership. But, we do not want to remove user form the group or ban him.

We just want some kind of temporary disabling his group membership as usually organization membership is regained and user has to be activated in the group again.

Is something like this possible or I have to file feature request?"

This has been asked by several forum owners/moderators. Any possibility that this may be a coming modification?

Thanks!


moderated Re: UTC values in Calendar time zone selection #bug #suggestion

Kenny Paul
 

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 09:06 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi Kenny,
 
Steps to the mike. "This is more of a comment than a question, but I HATE DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME". Ahem.
I concur. 
<snip>
 
I have added a specific UTC entry when selecting a timezone. I've fixed the (UTC) entry for Casablanca when selecting the timezone.
I actually just saw that a half hour ago while recording a "How-to"!   T H A N K   Y O U !  :-D
 
If you have any suggestions for how to improve the timezone selection, I'm all ears. I do need to regen it on a regular basis to update the UTC+/- numbers, but as you point out, that doesn't really show which currently UTC-equivalent timezones have different daylight savings settings.
My only other suggestion at the moment is to outlaw the practice of DST, but my plot for world domination has not progressed far enough to facilitate that yet. ;-)

--
Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager for ONAP
The Linux Foundation
Pacific Time Zone


moderated Re: make rejected-subscription notice semi-manual instead of automatic

 

p.s. Thinking about the overall Member Notices situation and which ones should be automatic, I think the only automatic ones should be ones that are persistent, i.e., that don't change with each action - e.g., the Welcome Message would normally not need change with each new member. You would have to go through and think about which others make sense as automatic vs which ones don't, but I think that's the right criterion. Right now I'm just dealing with this one specific issue.


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:50 AM J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Mark,

Trigger warning: this is one of those "strong requests.":-)

There is currently a Member Notice type of "Rejected subscription." Our group has created a handful of these, to fit various situations - e.g. the cat has no diagnosis, they did not complete the required questionnaire, the cat has a disease that is off-topic for this group, etc. In fact I think we have about 8, currently.

The problem is that unlike when rejecting a message, where you can pick a rejection notice (if desired) at the time of rejection, with rejected subscription you can't select which one you want to use at the time of the rejection. Instead, the notice you've designated as the "active" one goes out. That means that EVERY TIME you want to reject a member with or without a message, you have to go into Member Notices and redo the "active" status, either by removing the "active" from the current active notice (if you want no notification to go out), or by finding and checking "active" on the one you do want to go out, or at minimum, if your group has more than one such notice, going in to check that the "right one" is currently set to "active."

This is a ginormous PITA. For several years I've handled it on my own, not having active co-moderators to help with the member approval process. But now, to make matters worse, I am faced with communicating this mess and how to deal with it to my new co-moderators (I'm not even sure whether there's a specific permission they need to go in and change Member Notices, but I'm not going there now).

Can this please be fixed, once and for all? I did make the request a few years ago when we were dealing with the Member Notices documentation. It's another area that could use some cleaning up overall - namely, which actions trigger automatic notices vs. which allow real-time selection of a notice. But I'd be happy if we could just fix this one for now.

Specifically, the request is that rejected subscriptions be handled in the same way as rejected messages, namely: allow selection of a particular rejection notice (or other hand-typed message) at the time of rejection, rather than have an "active" notice set and needing change (or at least checking) every time a subscription is rejected.

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


--
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

9081 - 9100 of 29169