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: Meta Suggestion: preferences
Glenn Glazer
On 8/30/2019 12:19, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer Perhaps I am misreading this, but are you seriously suggesting that groups.io can't be improved? I agree that it is the best system out there, but anything can be made better, even the best thing available. Best, Glenn --
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences
Glenn Glazer
On 8/30/2019 11:50, J_Catlady wrote:
That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product. If that's true, then the preference system is not designed correctly. The whole point is that the product is a variable superset of user preferences, that setting a preference one way for one group does not affect the setting of the preference some other way by some other group. Thus "the product" is not affected as a whole other than to accommodate as many different styles as possible. If groups.io sets in stone some sort of preference, then it loses all of the groups who prefer the preference some other way. So insisting on some setting being some particular way does detract from the product by walling off a potential user base. Best, Glenn --
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences
Bob Bellizzi
Ditto what "J" Catlady said but add lots more years and experiences.
Sit back for another year or so, enjoy the ride and you will see groups.io has no peer -- Bob Bellizzi
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?
But a decision still needs to be made about whether mods can choose, on their own, to receive (and/or send) owner messages. I was just pointing out a minor inconsistency with the way things work right now, regardless of what is decided. The fix is easy: change the log entry.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?
You can call it a bug or an inconsistency. 😀
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Aug 30, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?
Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 02:47 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote: I thought we decided a while back that this was a bug, not an inconsistency. eg) It should be working this way (but it isn't): eg) Owner sets the permisison (P) and the Moderator is given the option (O) to accept or not. Result should be P "AND" O In any case, it is what it is.... -- Gerald
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: Meta Suggestion: preferences
That’s great and I would generally agree. A lot of us here, like you, and including me, are (or were at some point) senior se’s and I’m sure you understand that it’s not always just “implement the feature, make it an option, and everybody’s happy.” You take the product as a whole into account. Any particular feature can possibly add or possibly detract from the product.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Aug 30, 2019, at 11:24 AM, Glenn Glazer <glenn.glazer@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Meta Suggestion: preferences
Glenn Glazer
So, I've avoided a number of discussions here and on GMF because
they seem to boil down to folks arguing about personal preferences
of one sort or another.
I work as senior software engineer for a product that has complex server and client components, with an extraordinarily wide range of use cases. We get the chocolate versus vanilla discussions and customer requests all the time. When it comes to preferences and style, there is no one right answer that works for everyone. Welcome to the grand diversity of the human experience. At work, if we permit a subjective feature in the first place, we enable a switch to turn it on and off or a slider if it isn't a binary. Those that want can have and those that don't aren't required to have it. This approach completely walks around the whole problem of whether chocolate is "better" or "right" compared to vanilla and pleases the most number of people by stopping ourselves from saying OR when we could be saying BOTH. Best, Glenn Who prefers French vanilla, but is okay with ice cream stores also carrying chocolate flavors. --
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: #hashtags
KWKloeber
<<<On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:52 AM, Shal Farley wrote: Ok, but that doesn't explain why orig subj orig subj ended up in different threads/subjects/topics (take your pick <wink> ) They are identical.
Might the algorithm be updated to also ignore other commonly used? like RE:; [SPAM] etc (mind has temporarily gone blank)-- that an email client or other might tack on to the subject line?
|
|
|
|
locked
Re: suggestion - Consistency (ies)
KWKloeber
[avoding over quoting] Shal, I get your point that's a matter of style, so there's no "rule" as you try to point to. It's a matter of "direction." Talking to the screen, the settings are "my" (mine) - I own them, I set them, I control them. The screen talking back - they are "your"s -- you own them, you set them - but I abide by them. I would say "you put on YOUR pants" but you would say I put on MY pants.
Note that the confusion complaints aren't by seasoned users that can go to plan B if a menu looks odd or doesn't supply the info or choices one expects, We can click around and find what we want. Put their shoes on -- It's those who are afraid that clicking something they aren't supposed to might blow up the world, or at least their laptop. Settings can occur in different areas. Account settings, communication settings, display settings, bla bla. But subscriptions is what I am subscribed to (a list of them where I can manage them?) Now, if it were called This particular subscription's settings (opposed to another subscription's settings) then maybe novices could understand that better. but "subscription" is confusing -- doesn't convey any readably recognizable context as to what comes next in the clicking order. At least "Preferences" (display, communication, etc) would be recognizable. But regardless, consistency is the key - when one goes from one screen to another or to a help page, there are different terms for the same items that a novice has to stop and wonder, what's the difference between a post and a message, or a subject and a topic or thread, or bla bla -- they're used interchangeably and I see their point that's it's just plain ol' confusing to them, so therefore frustrating, therefore avoided.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 10:38 AM, Gerald Boutin wrote:
One: the Permission - That allows the moderator ....No, it is an inconsistency. If something is a permission, I can't give it to myself. It must be given to me by someone higher up. You would not call a variable that can be set by either the member or the owner (for example, a member's overall delivery preference) a "permission" just because someone higher than the member (a mod or owner) can set them. This is just a slight inconsistency, but I think it does hint that during implementation, Mark had on one side of his mind the idea that this setting is actually a permission. Unfortunately, in another part of the implementation (the actual editing of the setting), it behaves as a preference rather than a permission. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?
Gerald Boutin <groupsio@...>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:38 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."Confusing it can be - no arguments there. However, the way I look at it, there are two different bits of data that determine how the feature works. One: the Permission - That allows the moderator .... Two: The (Subscription) preference/setting that the Moderator has control of. I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency. -- Gerald
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: #hashtags
Drew
Yes, unfortunately this makes hashtags a lot less useful than they otherwise would be.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
For example, there is no point for a moderator to edit a message topic by adding a hashtag to a previously posted message if most of the subscribers participate in the group via email: they will all have received the original un-tagged post and their email followups to the original will be distributed as untagged. Our group uses hashtags so that subscribers can filter message posts- both in the archive to selectively browse hashtagged topics that they are interested in, but also by email subscribers to mute tags that they don't want to receive. The current hashtag behavior makes the second task a lot less useful than it otherwise would be. I might as well add a formerly mentioned feature request for hashtags: namely, the ability for online subscribers to mute specific hastagged topics while browsing the archive and filter them from view. Drew
On 08/30/19 08:23, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: +Owner Email a Preference or a Permission?
To add to the inconsistency and/or confusion: Last night I changed two moderators' subscription options (or email delivery options, whatever you choose to call them) so that they will receive all owner email, and log entries were created to the effect that I "changed their moderator permissions."
So bottom line, it is currently logged as a permission when changed by a group owner, but it *acts* like a subscription option becuase the moderators have the ability to change it themselves. Whatever is decided regarding the desired policy (permission or subscription option), this is currently a slight inconsistency in the system. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: #hashtags
KWKloeber
Confused!
Are we saying that adding a #HT in effect editing the topic (- or is that the “thread”? or the “subject”? or the “topic”? — I guess it doesn’t matter if consistently being inconsistent is being consistent <wink>) in effect creates a DIFFERENT thread? And a msg reply to the old t/s/t doesn’t get hooked up with the revised t/s/t? If so that seems pretty un handy. It seems that replies within a reasonable period of time should ignore appended #HTs and get m threaded with the revised t/s/t. Or maybe I’m misinterpreting the business rules applied to the email subject lines?
|
|
|
|
moderated
Proposal Automatically expand youtube URLS to Embed Youtube Video
Could Video embedding be enabled in MCE? https://www.tiny.cloud/docs/plugins/media/
That way users can post videos and see them directly embedded in posts on the site.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: #hashtags
Nope thats basicly what happened. I thought
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
the rest of the messages would get the tag if the 1st message was later assigned a tag. The replies , as well as the 1st post were all done via email. Another observation thats related - is the tag gets added to the subject line multiple times, when there is a reply via email to a message that has the tag in the subject field already.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Drew" <pubx1@af2z.net> To: <main@beta.groups.io> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:38 PM Subject: Re: [beta] #hashtags You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: #hashtags
Technotronic,
Ok, I think I figured out what's going
on. 1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied, but the tag on all the subsequent replies to the 1st topic didnt get tied in with the tag forced into the first post.Here's what the Topics and the Threading Algorithm, on the Group Managersr Forum Wiki reads: Posting by email with the same subject text causes them to thread together.... Here is the threading algorithm: If a message has threading information (i.e.: "References" and "In-Reply-To" entries in the message header), use that. Questions:
It's also possible that the person just replied, by email, to the first message they've got (in other words, the topic without the edited and tagged subject). In this case, I agree that the reply should be tagged, assuming the aforementioned conditions. Not sure if it will, but hope this helps. Cheers, Marcio AKA Starboy Sent from a galaxy far, far away.
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: #hashtags
Drew
You added the hashtag to a message post in the archive. If someone replied to that message in the archive the reply would have been hashtagged also; but I think if they replied to the original un-hashtagged post that they received via email it would not carry the hashtag.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
At least, that is my impression. I could be wrong about it. 73, Drew AF2Z
On 08/29/19 10:28, Technotronic Dimensions wrote:
1st topic didnt have a tag, and I manually added one days later. Few weeks went by, and someone replied,
|
|
|
|
moderated
Re: New moderation setting proposal
#suggestion
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:56 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
that does not necessarily make spotting a second membership application a reliable process.Right. It's very easy for someone to fake their way into a group, even with the new info on the geographical location, etc. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
