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.
|
locked
Re: Editing To: Cc: in moderation queue
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Shal Farley <shal@roadrunner.com> wrote:
When we have to re-write the From line because of DMARC, and theAnd for some instances where someone sends a message from a DMARCWhat purpose would that serve? I assume that on the outbound side of Groups.io all of the content of the To: and CC: fields is effectively commentary that won't be acted on. group's reply-to is set to reply to sender, we set the reply-to to be the sender and we add a CC line for the group. So if someone wants to do a reply-to-all, it'll capture the group's address. Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Yes, for me it was very easy, which is one of the reasons that I went with IO, but I have run into some SNAFU's with some of my members moving over from Yahoo or Wiggio (where they were for years). Mark was able to fix the one from last night, something to do with her email service sending the confirmation email to the wrong address. I've had a couple who when I sent the invitation, IO just shows that it failed. No idea why. Canceling/resending the invite gets the same result. Only two people so far, one of whom uses gmail. Plenty of other gmail users had no problems receiving invites. These two are still in limbo, unable to join. Also a couple said they did the steps to confirm and are already getting group emails, but in the invitation screen it still looks like they never accepted the invite. I think some of them may have gone to the group home page and joined manually as opposed to accepting the invite. Seems the invitation screen doesn't record that they became members via a different process. Some other people don't appear to be getting the invitations or they're possibly ignoring them or they're going to spam? Hard for me to tell for sure. They just keep saying I never saw an invitation. Getting back to the social logins...allowing it by default, I took that to mean that they would get that as the first option, with the box already checked to make that their default. That right there would freak some of my members out. LOL I'm dealing with probably a 60/40 non-tech vs fairly tech-savvy membership.. For that 60% who are not techie, they really have NO desire to learn more than they have to. Just telling these people we were switching over to a new groups service was traumatic and/or annoying for some, so letting it go to a social media login by default would probably put them into confusion mode which is why I'd prefer that they have to check a box to choose social media login. If they don't, then it's the typical choose a password login by default. Oh how I wish they were all tech geeks or at least had an interest, but they're not. Perhaps social login could be a choice/option the list owner can set up? That way tech-savvy groups could lean toward social media as their preference/default setting. If you're dealing with a group whose members are less interested in tech and/or despise social media, then you choose the standard IO login as the primary option for your group (with social being there as an option they can select if desired). Trish
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Shal Farley <shal@...> wrote: Trish,
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Trish,
I wouldn't want to force anyone to log in via a social networkingOf course not. I think that should be an option they have to select as opposed toWe were discussing allowing it by default, not requiring it. I have someone who's been trying to join groups.io <http://groups.io>;I'm curious where they're hung up, if you know. Perhaps they're over-thinking it (expecting it to be as complex as Yahoo). Unless something broke since the last time I tried it, signing up for Groups.io web access really is as simple as verifying an email address and setting a password. There is no unique ID to choose, nor an an email address to set up. -- Shal
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Judy F.
I agree Dano.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Judy SW Florida - USA
-----Original Message-----
From: D R Stinson [mailto:dano@mt.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 11:57 AM To: beta@groups.io Subject: [beta] Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google I just have an observation here. My concern is that this whole package is trying to be all things to all people and it might get too confusing on it's surface for some. I like the options and possibilities for individual users, but they should somewhere that savvy users would expect to go find them and basic users won't run into and be confused. We don't want to loose our less tech-savvy members because they think this system looks too complicated for them.I had a thought (it happens occasionally). What about people whoI agree. I think it should be disabled by user only when he/she first Dano
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Group Transfer
Hi Sener,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Sener Yelkenci via GROUPS.IO <seneryelkenci=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote: Could we transfer our groups also from other services then YahooGroups andYes, if you have a member list in an easy to read text format, and can show that you own the group, we'd be happy to help. You can contact me off-list to get things going. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Hi
I like Shal’s suggestion - Allow any service until the user either uses a social sign-in or establishes a password. Then enable only that service or none, respectively. In other words, any authenticated access locks your account down to just that form of authentication, but leaves you with the ability to enable other social logins if you desire. I think that it is younger users who may choose to log in with Facebook or Google. And we don’t want to miss that demographic. Some like me (older!) who have both these logins (and use those services) don’t choose to use the same login for multiple platforms. If Shal’s suggestion or a variation of that happens, the home screen of Groups.io should say something that clearly says that you are choosing to create a Groups.io account with Facebook, etc. Sorry, not sure of best wording. However, not just “sign in with”. As I mentioned, one user the other day who had a Groups.io account attempted to sign in with her Facebook account. Just thinking though, if someone wishes to, they can put any other email address in their profile under email alias. Frances
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
I wouldn't want to force anyone to log in via a social networking login. I think that should be an option they have to select as opposed to defaulting to it. I have someone who's been trying to join groups.io since last night who can't figure out the login/approval process. Add a Facebook login on top of that and she'd be even more lost. On the flip side, tech-savvy people will quickly see an option to use a social login and select it if that's what they want. It'd be a no-brainer for people who use social media often. Trish
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:57 AM, D R Stinson <dano@...> wrote: > > I had a thought (it happens occasionally). What about people who
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
I just have an observation here. My concern is that this whole package is trying to be all things to all people and it might get too confusing on it's surface for some. I like the options and possibilities for individual users, but they should somewhere that savvy users would expect to go find them and basic users won't run into and be confused. We don't want to loose our less tech-savvy members because they think this system looks too complicated for them.I had a thought (it happens occasionally). What about people whoI agree. I think it should be disabled by user only when he/she first Dano
|
|
|
|
locked
Group Transfer
Could we transfer our groups also from other services then YahooGroups and GoogleGroups to Groups.io . Like Groupspaces.com
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Maybe it contains a risk but its easy to transfer some people from google+ and from facebook. We need this option for Yahoo and Outlook (Hotmail, msn etc.) also.
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Mark,
I guess I need to re-state that. I said: And I'm with Ronaldo on the idea that the enable/disable should beSo it would be: Allow any service until the user either uses a social sign-in or establishes a password. Then enable only that service or none, respectively. In other words, any authenticated access locks your account down to just that form of authentication, but leaves you with the ability to enable other social logins if you desire. -- Shal
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
On 10 Mar 2015 at 16:50, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I had a thought (it happens occasionally). What about people whoI agree. I think it should be disabled by user only when he/she first establishes a native password. -- Jim Poston@vch-nv.us << I want to be a veterinarian because I love children. >>
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Mark,
What about people who register via email, usingI forget the flow there. If they don't establish a password then yes, allow social sign-in until they either use a social sign-in or set a password. Then yes or no, respectively. In other words, setting a native password locks down your account, but leaves you with the ability to enable social login if you desire. And I'm with Ronaldo on the idea that the enable/disable should be per-service (looking ahead to having more than two). -- Shal
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
I'd prefer that they not be allowed to use a social login if they subscribe by email
Duane
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Shal Farley <shal@roadrunner.com> wrote:I had a thought (it happens occasionally). What about people whoMakes sense to me. Implemented and pushed to the live site. register via email, using groupname+subscribe@groups.io? Should they be defaulted to being able to log in via a social login? My gut says yes. Thoughts? Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
Cacky B
I'm ok with adding a checkbox on your profile that you can check to disable social logins. Would that work for everyone? Thanks, Mark
I would use that. Cacky --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: New feature: Login via Facebook or Google
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Frances <travel@tansymews.ca> wrote:
Eeep. I did some investigating and things aren't yet properly approved on the Facebook side. The login works for me, because Facebook allows that for testing, so I didn't know that it wasn't yet working for others. I've taken out the Facebook login button for now until Facebook approves things. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Website not linking properly
#bug
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Duane <txpigeon@gmail.com> wrote:
There was a similar problem in a message (#2128) that Mark posted a few days ago. He inserted a link to Slack, but it links to https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/message/(http://slack.com) Looks like a problem with link parsing.Similar problem, different part of the code. Should be fixed. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Website not linking properly
#bug
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Chris Leong <walkraft@gmail.com> wrote:
I briefly looked at .tech-it-out. The webpage is listed asThanks for pointing this out. I just made the code smarter and it now handles this situation. Mark
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: Website not linking properly
#bug
There was a similar problem in a message (#2128) that Mark posted a few days ago. He inserted a link to Slack, but it links to https://groups.io/org/groupsio/beta/message/(http://slack.com) Looks like a problem with link parsing.
Duane
|
|
|