Date   

moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 01:44 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
1) There is logic to the Private button being grey. It's not active. When you press the button to active a private reply, it changes color. This is in keeping with how other buttons are colored on the site.
 
Yes, and it feels perfect to me as is for that reason.It's greyed out til you activate it - like on other sites.
And as Sarah mentions, once you click to activate it you do get "reply to sender" written on the button that before had "reply to group" or vice-versa.
I get zero complaints about this aspect of the interface on my end for what it's worth.

 
2) We add 'Private:' to the subject line for these responses. When you send a private message to someone via the group directory, we prepend '[DM]' to the subject. Should these both be consistent/the same word? Note also that we look for messages sent to the group that have a subject starting with 'Private:' and bounce those back to the sender. If the word were to be changed, I don't particularly like the word 'Off-list' because I generally like to use the word group instead of list, because Groups.io groups are much more than mailing lists.
I am fine with the way things are.

While Direct Message and Private Message are somewhat used interchangeably, there are subtleties.
I think DM's are DM's when they are not part of a topic. Sent as stand alone direct messages to a member from a member. They are more intimate.
You are essentially starting a conversation where there was none.

Whereas private replies are replies to topics which are sent privately and are in a context of a group discussion/chat.

Also, while you could call them both DM's, that "private" button would look weird and not intuitive if instead of "private" it said "direct" or "DM"  - not everyone knows yet what DM stands for even if it's used freely as a verb these days.

Maria


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:44 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Should these both be consistent/the same word?
Mark,

I have no preference on that.

I did notice that the bouncing of messages whose subject begins with "private" no longer seems to be working. I tested it just now because I vaguely remembered an issue with that. The messages are going straight through. I'll send the example to you at support.
 
--
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 10:47 AM, Dave Sergeant wrote:
On groups.io we have set the
default as 'reply to group'
Why don't you set it to "reply to sender"? 
 
--
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

Dave Sergeant
 

Different groups have very different needs. One of my groups is for
television service repairers. The idea was that someone would post a
help request for a fault on a set. When on Yahoogroups the default was
set for 'reply to sender', anybody who could help with the fault would
discuss directly with the sender. When a fault was worked out they
would post a final 'cure' to the group. On groups.io we have set the
default as 'reply to group' but that really doesn't work as people
cannot work out how to reply to sender so we have a lot of backchat of
no interest to most of us.

On our amateur radio groups there is often a request by somebody like
'please send me your scores, off reflector'. Because they can't work
out how to post direct we end up with a lot of unnecessary stuff via
the group, it turns out not to be 'off reflector'. (by the way in
amateur radio groups we tend to call these group lists 'reflectors',
something that non amateur radio people probably won't understand...).

However it is done, it is vital that reply to sender is easy and
obvious. It is not at present.

Dave

On 27 Mar 2019 at 9:31, Bruce Bowman wrote:

The button was set up this way to gently discourage subscribers from
using something that was not intended to be the primary reply mode of
the group. 

http://davesergeant.com


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

Hi All,

A couple of comments, in list form:

1) There is logic to the Private button being grey. It's not active. When you press the button to active a private reply, it changes color. This is in keeping with how other buttons are colored on the site.

2) We add 'Private:' to the subject line for these responses. When you send a private message to someone via the group directory, we prepend '[DM]' to the subject. Should these both be consistent/the same word? Note also that we look for messages sent to the group that have a subject starting with 'Private:' and bounce those back to the sender. If the word were to be changed, I don't particularly like the word 'Off-list' because I generally like to use the word group instead of list, because Groups.io groups are much more than mailing lists.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Sarah k Alawami
 

Actually, according to my screen readerthe button does say "reply to sender." Does it not say that for you guys?

On 27 Mar 2019, at 10:15, Noel Leaver via Groups.Io wrote:

> 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.

My issue is that if you ask someone who has not sent a Private reply before to send a reply to sender, many, probably most, will conclude the functionality is not there and so send a message via the group asking for the person's email address. It ought to be a bit clearer that the greyed out Private button does activate this functionality.

I think there are three things combining to make it hard to find on a large screen:

It being in grey means it does not stand out, and why would you press a disabled button which it looks like?

It is way over on the right, a long way from the two buttons you are looking at.

Most people on our group would be familiar with Reply to sender or Off-list reply, but private means little to them.

Noel



moderated Re: Feed view now the default

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:28 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I did just make two changes. 
 
- If you visit Muted or Followed Topics, we don't change your remembered home page.
Mark, I think that was probably the issue in my instance of this. I did not explicitly visit Followed Topics but I had to click on a "confirm" page to unfollow a topic, which may have somehow been part of that page. 
 
--
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: Feed view now the default

 

Hi All,

I'm not able to reproduce any issues with this. If you see something, please send a message to support with the steps to recreate.

I did just make two changes. 

- If you visit Muted or Followed Topics, we don't change your remembered home page.
- We now remember the calendar page and return to that if it's the last 'home' page you visited.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:21 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
On our group it is probably something a member uses once or twice a year. That is infrequent enough that you don't get used to it.
Noel, I agree 100% with you that making the "private" button more obvious (preferably, before the message composition box), and possibly changing the name of it as you've suggested, are preferable. I just skimmed (and posted) the prior threads and can find no explicit reason why it was done the current way and hasn't been changed. It's possible that Bruce unearthed the reason from somewhere, and/or that his guess on why Mark implemented it the way he did is correct, or that I missed something in those threads, but I'm not seeing it. So maybe this can be revisited. Either way, I'm with you on 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 Re: Reply to Sender

Noel Leaver
 

> 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.

On our group it is probably something a member uses once or twice a year. That is infrequent enough that you don't get used to it.

Noel

 


On 27 March 2019 14:26:56 GMT, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
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.
 


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Noel Leaver
 

> 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.

My issue is that if you ask someone who has not sent a Private reply before to send a reply to sender, many, probably most, will conclude the functionality is not there and so send a message via the group asking for the person's email address. It ought to be a bit clearer that the greyed out Private button does activate this functionality.

I think there are three things combining to make it hard to find on a large screen:

It being in grey means it does not stand out, and why would you press a disabled button which it looks like?

It is way over on the right, a long way from the two buttons you are looking at.

Most people on our group would be familiar with Reply to sender or Off-list reply, but private means little to them.

Noel



moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 12:31 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
The button was set up this way to gently discourage subscribers from using something that was not intended to be the primary reply mode of the group. 
Yes. That too. You are right. It does help with the culture of a group and as a guide to preferred reply method.


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

Bruce,

Are you sure about that? Here are the original threads on this subject, from way back in 2016. I've just briefly skimmed it, but some of the exact same concerns and suggestions were brought up then (some of which were implemented, some of which weren't), with the same complaints as now, and it looks like Mark never explicitly weighed into it -

preventing reply to group/sender mixups:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2185296?
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2182742

prefix 'offlist' to private replies:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/2193803

--
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

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:40 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
The button was set up this way to gently discourage subscribers from using something that was not intended to be the primary reply mode of the group. You mileage may vary, but I find it difficult enough to follow lengthy threads [like this one], even when all the associated messages are right there in front of me.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

KWKloeber
 

If you recall, YahCHOO! used a more descriptive way (via the pull down) which I think (CRS) were these options:

Reply to group
Reply to sender (or possibly it was or included the username or masked e-dress)
Reply to group and sender
Reply to (group owner?)

“Private reply”?
“Private message”?
James Bond-ish “To your eyes only”?

Thoughts. 

Ken


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:40 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:32 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
. Replace the greyed out Private button on the right by a Private check box on the left above the reply button. 
There was some reason this wasn't done at the beginning. I wanted the same kind of thing, but it couldn't be implemented and I don't remember why.
 
--
I can't remember either. But check boxes on mobile web and apps are not a good experience.
Re: the term "offlist" ( i am having dejavú) it's not a term the demographic in our groups would relate to at all and groups.io is SO much more than a listserv.
I think we kicked around the ideas Direct ( as in DM) or Private and it was agreed that private worked.

Again, have yet to get a complaint about this aspect of the interface - and more importantly no embarrassing private messages intended as such going to the group as a result.


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Maria
 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:26 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
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.
Exactly!


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

Sarah k Alawami
 

To me it's fine. This is howmost forums I've ben on work so I'm used to the change and have ben usign this for 2-3 years on groups.io when I visit the web interface which is rare, maybe 2-3 times a year.

On 27 Mar 2019, at 7:30, Barbara Byers wrote:

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: Feed view now the default

 

Jeremy,


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:
 
What Your Groups link? I'm not seeing any such on the Topics or Hashtag views.

Unless you mean the Your Groups drop-list in the logo bar. I've not seen any misbehavior with it. But then I almost always use it to pick a specific group. Until yesterday I'd quite forgotten it has a Manage My Subscriptions item at the bottom. Is that what you mean? If it was broken it seems now to be fixed.

Shal


moderated Re: Reply to Sender

 

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:51 AM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 07:47 AM, Noel Leaver wrote:
Even Offlist would be clearer in my view
Oh, sorry, I think you were referring to the button. I wouldn't mind the button being changed to "Offlist" either. Then the button name and the word at the front of the message would match.

I also argued awhile back that the message body itself start with and identifying word like "offlist" or "private." It frequently happens that I get a private message from someone and have no idea it's private, because the message is threaded within the topic in my emails. I then answer the message, assuming my message is going to appear onlist, and only when my reply doesn't post do I belatedly realize the message was private. I consider myself a savvy user and if this is happening to me, it's probably happening to others. I've even had some unpleasant communication problems because of this misunderstanding.
 
--
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

9601 - 9620 of 30082