locked Re: categorisation

Ant No

Well, objectively, you can't call something wholly unnecessary when there are many thousands of of groups to get through.

The search function is fine if you are on rails and know what you want to find. But strolling through the landscape to see what unanticipated wonder you stumble across also has merit.

An important point is that you can choose not to use it and include all categories in your sort or search. So you lose nothing while others gain something. It limits nothing and adds flexibility.

It's about the greatest choice for the greatest number. You can still do things your way. Those that want to can do it another way.


locked Re: fees

Ant No

You're forcing me to discuss this here against my wishes.

Defend your assertion of false information.

moderated Re: email privacy

Ant No

Hello Ellen

In an ideal world you are of course correct.

In this world data is harvested for profit which leads to spam and an undesirable level of covert surveillance.

For this reason Europe has enacted data protection laws that apply to any data held on European citizens regardless of where the servers are situated.

Names with emails are such data.

Members who wish to converse directly may choose to exchange emails through the existing channels with no special effort on anyone's part.

As you control whether that data is available it is also your legal responsibility to ensure each member has an informed choice on how their data is made available.



moderated OT: requesting special notices from Mark


I had to go special-notice because of the power blackout (need to limit phone usage due to battery life and no internet). Mark, if there are any genetal system messages you want everybody to get, it would be great if you could send them as special notices for the next few days (you may be doing that anyway, I don’t know). I’ll see you all again when the lights are back on. 🐱


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
Note on an occupational hazard: I comment frequently in beta based on my desire for the betterment of as a product. Only a fraction of the time are my comments and suggestions specifically a matter of self-interest. Don't assume the latter when the former may be the case.

locked Re: fees

Ant No

I've contacted you privately as this was intended just for Mark.

Deleting it now would suggest I don't stand by my perspective. I do.


moderated Re: email privacy

Ellen Moody

Is it true that members of a list cannot see the whole email of other members? As list"owner" (moderator), I can see emails of everyone. I would personally prefer everyone to be able to see one another's emails -- this way if people want to become friends offlist they can. If there is some rule that has been promulgated and prevents this I can say nothing but I prefer openness.  Ellen


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 2:43 PM Ant No <cmpaqp1100@...> wrote:
I agree Chris but remember that at the moment owners are trying to rescue a cat from a burning building and IT may not be their forte.

The data Holder, ie, has a data privacy obligation in law irrespective of how we feel.


moderated Re: email privacy

Ant No

I agree Chris but remember that at the moment owners are trying to rescue a cat from a burning building and IT may not be their forte.

The data Holder, ie, has a data privacy obligation in law irrespective of how we feel.


locked Re: categorisation


I disagree as well. . . categorizing groups is wholly unnecessary and too limiting.  

This is why there is a search query.   It is not unreasonable for users to review search pulls to find points of interest.  

locked Re: categorisation

Ant No

Thank you Duane.

I will read that.

In advance I would point out that the sudden increase in size of the groups list is an important new variable.

locked Re: categorisation

Ant No

Hello Rich

You seem to miss the point being made.

No one wants to pigeonhole you. Rather enable you to find all the different groups that might interest your eclectic self.

A group not fitting any of the specific topics suggested would just be other as listed. One of the first groups I'd search through.

Or you could suggest a category.

It's not about importance it's just about practical ways to find all the groups that interest you.

You may love amateur radio but I'm neutral on it but forced to wade through group after group in the search for other things.

There is no doubt there are allready thousands of groups with many more to come.

It's unreasonable to expect people to wade through a single list for fear of missing a group they want.

I'm not judging anything. I just want a search method I can use without devoting days to it.

Practicality not ideology.

locked fees

Ant No

You don't have to post this Mark, I've just learned your name as I've read around a bit more, I know my posts are currently moderated and you closed the last fee thread for good reason.

As feedback, for whatever my singular opinion is worth. Fees should not be based on member numbers, a poll tax in effect. One of the few things the British people have ever rioted over.

They should be based on whether the group is commercial and charges/makes money and on the actual resource usage in practice. I currently belong to quite a few groups and a fee for each would be untenable.

I understand you need to expand your hardware and bandwidth, but those are both prorata and comparable to costs for supporting preexisting groups. So an overnight doubling of fees is hard to understand purely on a cost basis.

Of course you are having to work very hard currently but that load per worker/cost per group would still be the same if you increased staff to meet demand.

The timing, mid crisis, is particularly unfortunate and can't help but suggest a demand economy model rather than a costs plus profit model. No combination of words will change that perception by people effected by it. They may not articulate it but they know what they feel.

One is usury and the other is capatilism with at least the possibility of a social conscience.

It's easy for a fee collecting group unaffected by the change to relentlessly and smugly seriously belittle people she feels don't share her clever foresight.

I'm sure that when she isn't being loyal and defending you she's actually lovely.

I forget who but calling poor people, who can't pay a fee, deadwood is deeply offensive.

The people forced into short notice change are the actual victims here, mostly of yahoo but also of your mid crisis policy change.

It's not your fault yahoo gave such short notice but it's not Yahoo's fault you raised your fees. So people are not blaming you for Yahoo's actions as suggested.

I have personally recommended this platform to two of the groups I am in. One of the group owners has four or five small groups. So I have some ego and reputation staked in this sudden policy change.

I admire your attitude and willingness to halt and even reverse changes. You express yourself very well. Far more personable than myself. But Mark Zuckerberg is plausible so that only goes so far.

I've seen institution after institution start with high moral assertions about community and end up maximising profit and squeezing as much as they can get away with. eBay would be a good example.

I'm sure you will consider things carefully. I believe you should consider halting mid crisis price hikes for non moneymaking groups.

Whatever the outcome I hope can retain the good name it has built up and that no precious archive of knowledge is lost forever because of financial constraints.

Burning the library down is an ignoble act whether Alexandria, Nazis or anytime knowledge is preventably destroyed. Profit is an even poorer motive than ideology.

Just my perspective.

I do wish you well despite my civil critique.


moderated Narrow formatting in Digests?

Phil Smith III

I started this on GMF and folks suggested it would be better here. seems very nice so far except for one thing: Digests are formatted in silly narrow columns. WebTV is long dead; why would anyone want to waste screen real estate like this? Makes it much harder to read.

One of the respondents suggested:
>It looks like the formatting design is contained in the HTML code, to

>fit nicely under the Groups IO graphic, which will be a fixed size. It's
>not difficult to change this, but it's something Groups IO codewriters
>will have to do.

I've attached a small screenshot of what I mean. Note the whitespace on either side, with the scrollbar wayyy off to the right.

moderated Re: email privacy

Chris Jones

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 02:40 PM, Ant No wrote:
The owner being threatened by cancellation admitted he didn't know how to change it.
Well Duane's post has pointed him or her in the right direction. It might be worth pointing out that Member Directory does not show subscribers' email addresses; it is Members Visible that is the critical setting.

Obviously a lot of groups have been set up from scratch in the last few days and it is thus highly likely that some settings might not be, shall we say... optimised. It is just a personal opinion but I firmly believe that Owners and Moderators have a duty to themselves and their members to take the time to familiarise themselves with all the various settings and functions available to a group so that they can better respond to any queries that arise. That familiarisation is most definitely not a half - hour task.

Getting settings "right" for any group can be made easier by an owner / moderator having a second subscription to a group as an "ordinary" member. This provides the facility of being able to see things from a member's point of view; this can be very different from what an owner or moderator sees. The only minor downside is that the second membership cannot be within the same account because a person's account is "defined" by their email address, and a second membership therefore requires a different email address, and thus a second account.

"Getting things right" is also a good reason for having a moderator elevated to Owner status, or as close to it as an owner is willing to tolerate given that the second person has to be someone in whom the owner has complete and unshakeable trust. It provides the ability to put heads together over any query that arises and as the old saying has it two heads are better than one. (As I type this GMF has 2225 heads!) It also means that the owner can be absent for a time (e.g. on holiday) without a group losing any of its management functions.


locked Re: categorisation


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:40 AM, Ant No wrote:
Looking at the list of groups for interesting things I was struck how some topics have a large number of groups that bury the more niche, but still interesting groups. This makes those laborious to find.
Something similar was discussed long ago, and


moderated Re: Direct Add


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:37 AM, G Gunsberger wrote:
I am one of many group "owners" who are moving their group from Yahoo Groups to this system.
Please read the Sticky Wiki at the top of the page,


moderated Re: email privacy


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 09:40 AM, Ant No wrote:
I have seen complaint within group that full email addy is visible in group members list for potential harvest
The group owner can change whether the Member list is available to everyone on the Settings page, Privacy, Members Visible. I believe this is set to Owner by default, so it was turned on somewhere along the line.


locked Re: categorisation

rich hurd

I’m not in favor of this.  

I’m an amateur radio operator that’s also a railfan, and of course I have an interest in computers and electronics (as I’m sure many ham’s do).  Plus I moderate a group of professionals that has nothing to do with any of these topics.  

I would view with distaste an effort to compel me to look at only a single pigeonhole.   

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:40 Ant No <cmpaqp1100@...> wrote:
Looking at the list of groups for interesting things I was struck how some topics have a large number of groups that bury the more niche, but still interesting groups. This makes those laborious to find.

If it were possible to exclude some topics while listing groups it would be easier to read through what remains. Conversely, if your interest is one of these group clusters you can read through just that.

Obvious candidates so far:

Trains/ railway/railroad of all types and sizes.

Amature/ ham radio

Dolls and related (doll clothes etc)

All things fabric knitting/quilting etc


Disability related Blind etc


Spirituality Inc religion/paranormal etc

Graphic arts other than incredimail

Arts other than graphic etc listed elsewhere.

Metal, wood and plastic working- casting/lathes/milling machines/3d printers/tools/machine shop etc

Cooking/ food related

Brewing and distilling


Science fiction

Literature not listed elsewhere




Science not listed elsewhere

Themed friendship groups, veterans, old co workers, local community etc

Strictly local, family networks etc.

Other not listed elsewhere.

I'm sure there are more but that's my first impression.

Group owners could be asked to choose one  category to belong to. This will resist the erosion of intent if groups were entered in multiple categories. Choose a core identity.

Eventually group owners could request the addition of new or sub categories. Second level to avoid delaying the first level.

This will make it easier for potential members to find groups of interest. Particularly for eclectics and synthesists who don't always know what they're looking for until they find it.

A Boolean search of categories to include or exclude when sorting the list of groups would be ideal.

The recent groups is a useful sort but swamped right now. The existing sorts should be able to be applied to the results of the category sort.

The top five are all pretty big the rest are in random order as they popped into mind.

I hope this will happen as soon as possible.




We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” ― John F Kennedy

moderated Re: Direct Add

M K Ramadoss

Direct add limit is just a pause. Depending on the work load, rest get released within minutes or couple of hours. It is a mechanism to control spam. I have added a list more than 1000 by direct add


On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 9:37 AM G Gunsberger via Groups.Io <> wrote:
I am one of many group "owners" who are moving their group from Yahoo Groups to this system.

I thought I could take a bit of the pressure off the transfer process by using the "Direct Add" function. But I couldn't find what the maximum allowable number was. I tried with about 350 addresses but that was too many. Now I have to wait for approvals,  which ties up the current high-demand resources in It would have been useful to have been able to find what the maximum with "Direct Add", or to ease the maximum because of the present extreme circumstances.

Is there also a maximum for sending invitations?

moderated Re: Is this Forum the best place to get updates about the YahooGroups Apocalypse Migration?

Ant No

Couldn't you automate that second step to make a single step process which saves you some labour and time? Assuming the servers are in place to carry the load.

moderated email privacy

Ant No

Also I have seen complaint within group that full email addy is visible in group members list for potential harvest. This should be changed so that full EAs are always hidden unless given by the owners to specific individuals via pm. It's a major data protection breach. This should be a priority.

If it's a current setting it should be on by default and all owners made specifically aware of how to enable it if it's off. The owner being threatend by cancellation admitted he didn't know how to change it.