Date   

moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
Reply
to Sender and a less dramatic word in the reply subject line would be
far better.

I think people are mixing up the name of the button, which could reasonably be changed from "private" to "reply to sender," with the subject line of the message, which currently begins with the word "private" but could not be reasonably be changed to "reply to sender." I do agree that the word "private" for the subject line sounds TOO private. I usually append the word "offlist" to the subject line, which has the effects of both removing the weirdness of the word "private" and takes my reply out of the email thread for the onlist topic. (The word "private" currently appended unfortunately - IMO- keeps the private reply within the group topic in my email, which tends to be confusing.)

So I agree that the button name could (but not necessarily should) be changed to "Reply to Sender". And the subject title could possibly be changed to add "offlist" instead of "private." I think both changes would be slight improvements. 
--
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: Reply to Sender

Noel Leaver
 

> I disagree re: obscurity. I think the reply interface was updated (2016?) to the current layout for replies. We have had very few accidental group replies as a result of the layout. I think it helps tremendously with that and mirrors the private reply option on a few other widely used platforms. Especially on a mobile screen, it's very easy to locate. 

I can see it helps you, but some of my users are on unable to find and use the feature. All the other platforms I use have a Reply to sender option rather than Private - including group.io when using email Further, as someone who normally uses email when I tried to find the option on the web screen it took some time, if was average user I would have given up and assumed it did not exist.

> I can see how with large desktop screens it may feel too far away, not sure there is a fix for that

I think my last suggestion is a good solution. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. It would be much more obvious and I don't think would make it more likely for people to use it by accident.

Noel


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Dave Sergeant
 

When I receive a 'private' email it gives the impression that the
sender was sharing something with me that I should keep to myself and
not even mention in the group. In most cases it is nothing such. Reply
to Sender and a less dramatic word in the reply subject line would be
far better.

Dave

On 27 Mar 2019 at 7:19, Barbara Byers wrote:

Just wondering why it is called "Private" rather than "Reply to Sender"?

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Barbara Byers
 

I would agree with showing all or part of the email address for the same reason, to show it's going to the right person.  

Now that I played around with it, I'm OK with how it works, it's just the "Private" isn't very intuitive.  Could it be labeled "Private Reply"  or something like that?  Just thinking out loud.

Barb

 


On 2019-03-27 10:22 AM, J_Catlady wrote:

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
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: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:19 AM, Barbara Byers wrote:
I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages
If you did it more often you'd quickly get used to it. This is one of those things that people learn the first time around. But it could benefit from some user documentation for sure.
 
--
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: Reply to Sender

 

I remember arguing the same as Noel when the feature first came into being. I wanted people to be able to (i.e., have to) click "private" before even composing their reply. The thread is probably easily locatable. It was another big one. As I vaguely recall, it came to being this way because of implementation issues. But I agree with Maria that at this point, it rarely causes problems.

I do wish that the email address, or at least part of the email address, where the private reply is going could be visible or even partly visible. It always makes me vaguely nervous to send private replies because I never see that 100% confirmation I need to see that I haven't screwed up and addressed it to the wrong person. But this is probably a separate topic.
--
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: Reply to Sender

Barbara Byers
 

Funny, I hardly ever use the web interface to send messages, but I happened to try yesterday and I could not figure out how to Reply to Sender.  I didn't even notice the "Private" button, LOL.  I ended up having to go back to my email to do it.

Just wondering why it is called "Private" rather than "Reply to Sender"?  Is there a distinction I'm missing?

Barb


moderated Re: Feed view now the default

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 01:35 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
issue of the 'Your Groups' link at the top of Topics and Hashtags views, which now seems to have rather random effects as to where you go:
And not only the one from the top of Topics and Hashtags views. I was once taken to my list of topics (i.e.,in  all groups), which I had not visited in recent, or even semi-recent, memory, after clicking on groups.io at the top. I'm guessing that possibly it was because some time before that I "unfollowed" a topic from another group (from email) and was taken to the confirmation page for unfollowing it, which may be (implicitly) part of the "all topics" page internally? Just a guess. But it was disconcerting. Since next time it took me to the right place, I would not have mentioned it if you had not brought up a similar concern here.
 
--
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: search suggestion - first posts of all new topics

 

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:45 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm hoping that my comment on your suggestion might edge it closer to the top of Mark's to-do list.
Thanks, me too! In all honesty, it's not a high-priority item. More of a "it would be nice" thing, esp. since seems easy to do.
 
--
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: Maintain Defaults Whenever Practical #suggestion

Maria
 

Hi Shal

This is probably worth it's own separate thread, but I think it's more useful if I see how it all feels in a week. As with any interface change/IOS change/ phone change - it may be that in a week I'm totally used to the way it is. Not sure right now.

I use mobile web / apps a lot, so, I also need to contextualize it to that experience when there isn't a mouse/desktop present, and time/dexterity is even more limited. I also need to think about it in terms of what is relevant to me as an admin and irrelevant to members. Members are not constantly checking to see what pending stuff they need to deal with. It's a different set of priorities for them. Perhaps it's simply an admin specific area needed. But will stop there.

Maria


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:43 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:

It seems sufficiently obscure that people can't find it even when looking for it.

 

I disagree re: obscurity. I think the reply interface was updated (2016?) to the current layout for replies. We have had very few accidental group replies as a result of the layout. I think it helps tremendously with that and mirrors the private reply option on a few other widely used platforms. Especially on a mobile screen, it's very easy to locate. Folks in our groups use the private reply option a lot.

I can see how with large desktop screens it may feel too far away, not sure there is a fix for that.

FWIW the groups I moderate/help with are on in the mid-size range/frequent activity, and I only mention that as data because if people were routinely confused, we'd definitely be getting complaints, but also as reassurance in case your members are new to the platform, that ours got a hang of it real quick.

I am satisfied with the way it is at the moment and would be very apprehensive about any major change to it.

Maria


moderated Re: Feed view now the default

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 04:35 AM, Jeremy H wrote:
But unfortunately not the - presumably related - issue of the 'Your Groups' link at the top of Topics and Hashtags views, which now seems to have rather random effects as to where you go: I suspect it is actually coded to take you to the remembered/default 'home page', rather than 'Your Groups' as it states.
Just as a data point, I have not noticed any odd behavior. If I click on the "Your Groups" navigation tab ( second from top) on the left hand side of desktop browser view when on https://groups.io I get the behavior I would expect and that is the "Your Groups" page and never anything else.  It seems to be working as it should for me. Maybe it was fixed, but didn't notice this yesterday and I played around with it a lot.

Maria


moderated Re: Feed view now the default

Jeremy H
 

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:22 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi All,
 
I've made the following change: we now remember which 'home page' you were last on, whether that's the Feed page, the Groups page, or the Topics page, and we return to that page the next time you go to https://groups.io (or click on the logo). Also, I've fixed the column sorting issue with the Groups page.
 
Thanks,
Mark
But unfortunately not the - presumably related - issue of the 'Your Groups' link at the top of Topics and Hashtags views, which now seems to have rather random effects as to where you go: I suspect it is actually coded to take you to the remembered/default 'home page', rather than 'Your Groups' as it states.

Jeremy


moderated Re: Bounced emails

Dave Sergeant
 

For what it is worth, I had an identical error a couple of weeks ago
using 1&1 SMTP (any groups.io address), occurred suddenly but now seems
to have been cured while doing nothing my end. While it was failing I
used my alternative BTInternet SMTP.

I was going to contact Mark via the support line but didn't get round
to it. Yes, not really an issue for beta but Mark himself has
discusseed bounces here in the past.

Dave

On 26 Mar 2019 at 14:44, Toby Kraft wrote:

What it is saying is that server lb02.groups.io (Remote-MTA) rejected
the message for kasergames@groups.io (Final-Recipient) with error
"invalid request".

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

Noel,

... and then notice the greyed out button on the right "Private" and
realise this is the same as reply to sender, and that it is not greyed
out because not available but because the option is not selected.
I agree that grey, which usually signifies a control that is not available (doesn't "click"), is a very poor choice for a button that is actually intended to be used.

I would prefer to have a button labelled "Reply to Sender" alongside
"Reply to Group" and get rid of the Private button.
It was once that way. The criticism was that it made it too easy for members to accidentally click the wrong one.

I realise this gives something of an issue with the BCC me option -
how valuable is this?
It is IMO essential for private replies, as otherwise you have no copy of message you sent.

could it be shown anyway and ignored for Reply to Group.
I don't see the harm in leaving it present and functional. A person whose subscription is Digest, Special Notice, or No Email might find it useful to have an emailed copy of their reply.

Shal


moderated Re: search suggestion - first posts of all new topics

 

J,

Totally, which was I was flummoxed by your mentioning it. :-)
I find the UI design aspects interesting.

The challenge (for Mark, ultimately) is to let the user ask for the result you want, within the style of the site and, hopefully, leveraging existing concepts and controls in a way that makes the function easily discoverable. In this case, that UI choice happens to suggest an implementation modeled on the implementation of the existing date sort.

I'm hoping that my comment on your suggestion might edge it closer to the top of Mark's to-do list.

Shal


moderated Re: search suggestion - first posts of all new topics

 

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 09:19 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
this one seems fairly pedestrian.
Totally, which was I was flummoxed by your mentioning it. :-)
 
--
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: search suggestion - first posts of all new topics

 

J,

Shal, I'd say you're talking about the UI here (how it would look to
the user), not the implementation. Sure, it could look like that.
♫ Because you know I'm all about that look,
'Bout that look, no coding

I only worry about implementation if the suggestion seems challenging, but this one seems fairly pedestrian.

Shal


moderated Re: Maintain Defaults Whenever Practical #suggestion

 

Maria,

Maybe we simply need the Your Groups button no matter where we are on
the site - we used to use the LOGO.
Interesting idea.

One possibility would be to make it the top entry in the Your Groups drop-list. That's still two clicks though.

I don't think I want it below the Logo bar when visiting a group's pages; currently everything below the bar (and above the footer) is group-specific when visiting a group's pages, and I think that's a good design choice.

Shal


moderated Re: Suggestion-calendar feature

Maria
 

I'm late on this. I see the inconvenience mentioned by Charlie and Gina, but we were enjoying that cal-invite automatically checked on.

After the default was changed to that we just adjusted by moderating the cal-invite hashtag, so that no errors would come through if a member made a mistake setting up an event, and so we could make sure that there are not an unreasonable amount of reminders. 
Having cal-invite checked off by default helped ensure that no one set up an event and forgot to announce it. Which has happened several times and made for surprised members when the first they heard of an event was via a reminder close to the date.

It's ok - we will deal with it! We can manage.  Our group didn't ask for the cal-invite to be checked on by default, but we thought it was a good idea.

I wonder if there is any way for mods to be alerted if a member sets up an event but doesn't check off cal-invite?
Mods could go in and correct that then.
Or for the member to be reminded that they are forgetting to announce their event.

Thank you!
Maria

10201 - 10220 of 30656