For general Groups.io questions, please see the Group Managers Forum and Group_Help groups. Note: those groups are volunteer-led and are not officially run by Groups.io.
|
moderated
Re: Web-only group
#suggestion
Patti Woodbury-Kuvik <desertequinebalance@...>
Behind J Catlady’s suggestion 100%.
I’ve just spent several days working with others to set up a health-oriented education/discussion/support group only to realize that the email feeds don’t scrub individuals’ email addresses. Otherwise the functionality is exactly what we need. If addresses can’t be scrubbed from the email feeds, then a no-email option would work well. Most similar (health) groups are web based only and people often join for short periods of time for information and support then move on - there’s no need for them to have access to everyone else’s address. Many of these users are not sophisticated enough to set up an alternate email or even realize they could be exposed. As far as display name, an individual can determine how revealing or detached from their identity it is. I’m sure there are nefarious people out there with nothing better to do than to put screen names into their browser search and match them up with real people - well, many NSA but I don’t think they’ll bother with my group. But I seem to be hearing “anonymity” and “privacy” being thought of as one and the same here. While “privacy” is often/usually a subset of security “anonymity” is not.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Group home page redesign
This is a bit late. As a general principle, I think hashtags are a good feature, but for some groups, they are an unnecessary complication and best not used.
When one of my groups moved to groups.io, I tried to promote the value of hashtags and a few people used them for a while, but within a few weeks, they all quit and I quit promoting them. As a result, hashtag counts show up on the home page, but they are deceptive since none have been used for a couple years. I suggest that you set up a rolling window, i.e. only show counts for the past 12 months or whatever threshold seems appropriate. Sorry for chiming in so late. Best, Marv
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:23 PM Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner=zoho.com@groups.io> wrote:
It feels like this is the wrong solution to what you want to achieve. I can see people being completely confused by which function to use. You want analytics, and I'm not sure this is the right way to get that. Thanks, Mark
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
Barry_M
That makes sense, Mark. I bet it is email client driven. Being able to change the reply-to default helps so, if a subscriber does want to reply-all (to the group), they then have to scroll to that link at the bottom of the message.
Would it be easier/more sensible to build the notify/don't notify choice into both "reject" and "delete" though? I'm not sure how many others might value that but it only makes sense if the group is using the two for two different, pragmatic, purposes aside from notification. Thank you! Barry
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:13 PM Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner=zoho.com@groups.io> wrote:
Are you referring to what individual email clients display when viewing an email? There's nothing we can do about that, that's a function of the email client the person is using to read the message. 1. Including more clearly labeled "reply to individual commenter" and "reply to entire group" at the top of a group-sent email I think adding a header to messages would be problematic at best. Thanks, Mark
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
Barry_M
Hi Gerald,
Thanks for the question. There are two things related to the suggestion of considering a "without notification" option for both delete and reject. On the tracking piece, we're finding that we use reject when some type of group rule or norm has been violated, typically on content or tone or whatever. Alternatively, we'll use delete if a more administrative or technical issues, such as when the commenter mistakenly replies to the group when they intended to reply to an individual commenter. Separate and related to that, allowing for auto-notification or no-notification (different from whether an owner/mod chooses to write a reply message), seems like it would just be more compressive in allowing group leaders to handle the full gamut of possible situations most effectively and efficiently. Finally, aside from allowing that choice for both reject and delete, I do think better if the default top fields on emails sent to group members were more literal, descriptive and consistent with what most are familiar with from normal email. That was my #1 below in the original post. Barry
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
Barry,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I don't understand what nuance you are trying to track. The way I see it, there are only two possible cases, not three, or four. The difference between Rejecting and Deleting is only whether or not you want to bother to reply to the submitter. -- Gerald
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:45 PM, Barry_M wrote: Thanks J_Catlady and Leeni! I should have been more specific on that bit. Knew about delete but was suggesting the "without notification" option be added to "Reject" since enables better/different trend analysis. And, the bigger issue for us is the delivery preference driven email formatting stuff described but maybe that's addressable by owners a different way? Thanks again.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Group home page redesign
Hi All, To re-iterate/clarify: - The 'new' home page will have the full group description, always. - If there are no hashtags, then that entire section will not be shown (which is different from the current home page, where 'Top Hashtags' is always shown). - If archives are not visible, for whatever reason, hashtags are not shown, either in the current home page or the new one. I want to tweak the hashtag boxes a bit more before rolling it out, so it'll probably be a few more days. Thanks, Mark
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Limit daily posting frequency
#suggestion
Hi Henning
What is more important- having a few 'chatty' people, or none chatting at all? Being owner/ mod/admin comes with responsibilities to maintain discipline. If they won't adhere to the rules- up the ante and put the cons on 'moderated'. Simply respond with "over limit' when they continue to post. They will either learn, or leave. Which is better? regards davew
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Limit daily posting frequency
#suggestion
On a community mailing list, lightly moderated and with about 1,200 members, we have a "three posts per day" rule to avoid that chatty members dominate the discussion or that a back-and-forth gets out of hand and turns the list into a Slack channel. It would be great if there was a way to automatically enforce a posting limit for each member. The details are less important, i.e., whether it's N posts in 24 hours or during a single calendar day or even "at least X hours since last post."
A global limit for all group members is sufficient (you never know who starts unrolling Twitter threads on you), with a per-user daily posting limit nice, but not critical. Similarly, automatic message rejection is fine for our purposes, or moderation (but with some indication as to why the message landed in the moderation queue). This could be part of the moderation settings. Thank you! Henning Schulzrinne (LeoniaTalks)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
2. Making the default for a generic reply to the individual commenter rather than to the group email addressGroup Owner(s) and Moderator with "Modify Group Settings" permissions can: Admin: Settings: Message Policies: Reply To: Sender You can reinforce this by checking the box just below that for: Remove Other Reply Options THEN click on the "Update Group" blue button at bottom of page. The page will then jump to the top and display "Your changes have been saved." in the green bar.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
Barry_M
Thanks J_Catlady and Leeni! I should have been more specific on that bit. Knew about delete but was suggesting the "without notification" option be added to "Reject" since enables better/different trend analysis. And, the bigger issue for us is the delivery preference driven email formatting stuff described but maybe that's addressable by owners a different way? Thanks again.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
Leeni
-------Original Message-------
From: Barry_M via Groups.Io
Date: 6/17/2019 6:19:21 PM
Subject: Re: [beta] Reply Audience Confusion #reply #email
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
You can just Delete it from pending. You’ll get a confirmation dialog, “Delete this message without notifying the sender?” and you click “yes”.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jun 17, 2019, at 4:19 PM, Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Reply Audience Confusion
Barry_M
Also, related to the above, would it be possible to build an option to reject a post without notify the subscriber? Unless I'm wrong (always possible! ), I think now the only owner/moderator option when rejecting a post is to reject it and notify the affected member with or without an explanation. I'd think helpful for others, as well as us, to have the option to reject without notification since, for some subscribers, they can get alarmed by learning their post was "rejected" since they don't understand the context. We've had that happen a couple of times when we chose to communicate with the member beyond the platform with explanation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Reply Audience Confusion
Barry_M
As I'd imagine true for many groups here, our group has subscribers with widely varying levels of tech savvy and background. We made the decision early to moderate less to prevent inappropriate or divisive posts and more to prevent mistaken posts intended for an individual commenter versus the entire group.
I've realized that some of our members who don't use the website are confused about how to post and reply despite our writing guidelines and messaging with the basics. I think some of this confusion may be lessened with changes to the layout of the template for subscribers with "individual emails" and "daily summary" delivery preferences. More specifically, the way such members get their comments made to the group via email has two fields at the top labeled "To:" and "Reply-to:". Since not in the typical email format of "From" and "To", some of our members just reply to the email, using whatever email client, without realizing they are replying the entire group (whose address is in both of those fields at top). Though clear at the bottom of an email sent by the group (per the attached screenshot) to reply to an individual commenter or to the group, many of our members never look down there, hit reply and then we have to email them to explain and hopefully educate. Can this be made more intuitive? Specific suggestions would include: 1. Including more clearly labeled "reply to individual commenter" and "reply to entire group" at the top of a group-sent email 2. Making the default for a generic reply to the individual commenter rather than to the group email address Maybe some of this is something I can set within settings or elsewhere? Thank you! Barry
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
ability to search (filter by) messages with attachments
#suggestion
It would be helpful to be able to add "contains attachment" to a message search.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
include "direct added" in member activity
#suggestion
I can't remember whether this came up before: since moderator actions on a membership of having approved or rejected a membership are included in the member's activity history, it seems an anomaly that having been direct added is not included as well. For example, I have a group member who was initially rejected, and then direct added as a result of further offlist communication. Her member activity page shows only that a moderator rejected her and the next thing, edited her posting status. It looks a little crazy.
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Group home page redesign
Pamela Tatt
I look at and update our homepage every month to change our current charities we are supporting.
Being able to see the full description is very important to us. thanks for all you do Mark, regards Pamela knit4charities@groups.io
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Group home page redesign
My understanding was that Mark’s comment applied to the redesign, not the current design. We can no longer see the redesign in anything but the beta group. Maybe he will clarify.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Jun 15, 2019, at 1:08 PM, Michael Pavan <michaelpavan@comcast.net> wrote:On Jun 13, 2019, at 8:28 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:If you want to get rid of the hashtag section, and don't use hashtags much, you can always go in and delete your existing hashtags. That'll make that section disappear.I have Admin: Settings: Message Policies: Hashtag Permissions --
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
|
|||
|
|