Here is the situation: Is there a systemic problem?

===

Transfer fees paid and request made on October 18 and invite was sent from yahoo and transfer@groups.io was made a owner at yahoo.

Invite has been received by GIO on Oct 18

But invite is yet to be accepted.

 

Then today you wrote:  
Here is the message on GIO

We've received the invite to your group and will accept it soon. There is no need to send another invite.

When did you see this message first? What is the status now?

Mark (Groups.io) wrote in Beta:

"Transfers are queued up when you first set it up and processed in that order until you get to Step 5. 

At that point they are re-ordered based on when the transfer go-ahead is given and uploaded to groups.io in that order (unless you pay $200 for priority service)."

Assuming a part of the "no mail" members are bouncing without knowing it, I've decided to approach all these members by e-mail, outside of the group.

It appears that:

 - a part of these members appears to bounce. I remove these bouncing members from the group.

 - Some of these members reply: "I'd like to stay in the group and want to receive again the group mail". I change the status of these members in "single mail".

 - Most of the members are not responding at all. I'll wait two weeks and, if still no response, remove them.

I expect, by doing this, to clean up the group from 875 (partly inactive) members to at most 400 (active) members.

My Yahoo group had 1275 members, but 400 members were already bouncing in the Yahoo period and were not imported by Groups.io.

 

It takes a lot of time, but it's useful to clean up the group.

---

Harm Selling

I will post a copy or summary later (I subscribe). Getting constant
server errors from their site at the moment.

Dave

On 29 Oct 2019 at 7:53, Tanya's Feline CKD wrote:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/28/internet-activists-fig
hting-save-yahoo-groups/

You need a subscription to read the full article, perhaps if someone has
access, they could let us know a bit more about what Shal says (though
at least I now know how old he is).

HTH

Helen

http://davesergeant.com

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/28/internet-activists-fighting-save-yahoo-groups/

You need a subscription to read the full article, perhaps if someone has access, they could let us know a bit more about what Shal says (though at least I now know how old he is).

HTH

Helen

Our Yahoo group has never allowed the "No Mail" option and I always change anyone on it to "Special Notices" before I send one. I really like the groups.io setting that disallows it automatically!

Emailed Photos Bug: When I click a thumbnail the wrong photo appears, see attached gif

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 03:33 PM, Ant No wrote:

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.

Ant

You fail to appreciate the power of groups.io's search function.  You may want to learn how to use it, rather than advocate for the addition of an unnecessary categorization element to it.  

In the group search function, a user may add any number of descriptive keywords that will filter down the results.  There is no need to add boolean search operations.  Simply add a 2nd, 3rd, 4th. . . . etc. . . keyword with a space in between the keywords; and the search function will drill down the results pull.  Mark has done a great job making the search function a unique phenomenal asset on groups.io.

Go to Admin > Settings > Member Notices > New Notice

Select Notice Type to "Invite", add desired content, and then "Add Notice".   This will save a new invite notice.

As of now, there is no way to save a customized invite.  I suggest that as a new option with the ability to edit the saved invite.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:25 AM, Ant No wrote:

Hello Ronaldo

I'm actually trying to get away to my new groups

??

but have to ask; how would
the tag system have helped me find the group I mentioned?

you would find it by doing a search for a tag that the owner/moderator put in the description.

Being able to exclude searchterms would be nice, but 20 categories of a thousand groups each
would still leave a lot of wading to do (and I expect groups.io to become significantly bigger).

BTW a tag system still would require some administration, as abusers of tags need to be dealt with

I can't favour any system that doesn't facilitate finding the obscure group
who wants like minds to find them.

I'm not sure there can be a system that does...without sacrificing your privacy to "artificial intelligence" that is
.

Mine was a purely pragmatic suggestion. It would work to make it easier.
That's all I want. Something that works. It's not an ideological belief. It's
an observation based on slogging through several thousand groups the hard way.

So you want to go from "not knowing whether a group exists" to "knowing in which category it should be"?

Let me give an example: suppose you have a group about lesbian cats in Papua New Guinea. Do you want
people to find it under "pets" , "LGTBIA+" or "travel-->PNG"?
Wouldn't three tags "lesbian" "cats" and "PNG" be far more efficient (as long as nobody abuses the tags)?

A science fiction author once wrote that the future needed eclectic synthesists who could connect the dots.

I'll look up what that is.


groetjes, Ronaldo

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:39 PM, Ant No wrote:

The system I propose seems logical, simple and effective. It's an addition to what currently exists not a replacement for anything.

Like I mentioned earlier... Determining the correct word choice for each category would be a monumental task in and of itself. For me, I am not in agreement with many of your suggestions.

I think keywords work much better and allow each group to determine how they want to be found.

Thank you again for your help Duane.

I see now the drop menu is just for topics.

What you tell me seems to support my own observations and experience that tags may have their place but finding groups is not that place.

The system I propose seems logical, simple and effective. It's an addition to what currently exists not a replacement for anything.

Apart from, "very busy at the moment" and a modest amount of work I can't see the problem unless it's ideology over pragmatism.

I suppose what I'm suggesting is that a system based on the actual groups demographic will always work better than any theoretical academic construct or a personal  preference/attraction or emotional distaste for a particular method.

Admittedly there are around 12000 groups and counting I haven't looked through but a sample size of 7000 seems large enough to be helpful in identifying the popular categories that actually exist, here, now.

I believe that basing a system on the realities of what is there will work. I think insurance companies use actuarial data that way. What actually happens defines thier rates.

Getting a category for your group is not pigeonholing you. It's a big up that you're an important/popular topic and it creates a way for less popular groups to be found more easily.

If the suggested categories were implemented it would make it easier to manually inspect what remains (other) to see if there are sufficient numbers of groups that share an interest to suggest additional categories that actually exist as popular group types.

Frankly I'd never even heard of incredimail but it spawned a lot of groups so deserves a category. It's not about what I like (mostly) it's about what's there.

Hopefully a good chunk of the unviewed and new 12000 and counting groups would self identify with one of the currently observed categories and not need to be manually scanned. Thus making it easier to look through a smaller uncategorised "Other" section to identity possible additional categories. It seems simple and obvious to me. "Self evident" I think is the American phrase, Bill of rights or constitution, I forget. Wish we had them though.

I'm just trying to solve the problem I encountered in a rational way that works and is as simple as possible. Tags may be a newish trend and I'm sure they have their place but they didn't help me here. No one has told me how they could have.

It doesn't matter how attractive a theory seems if it doesn't actually work in practice.

I understand that a search function and bottom up tagging have a low administrative burden. I also understand that's a genuinely important consideration. But I'm not suggesting anything with a high burden. I've done the slog to observe and identify the initial actual categories plus some I added in out of preference. I'd be happy to identity which witch is which.

That's the one thing that hadn't been done in the previous posts I read suggesting this system. I believe that's enough to make it work without creating a high administrative burden.

If implemented I may do more.

Ant👣

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 12:46 PM, Drew wrote:

Keywords section in their group descriptions

Excellent! This solution is much better than sticking your group in a pigeonhole. 

The other problem with pigeonholes is proper wording. For example.. the above suggestion of a category labeled "Disability" would cause all sorts of ruckus in the US. Determining the correct word choice for each category would be a monumental task in and of itself.

I would suggest that this is for those who wish to do so.
I'm sure some groups would rather remain anonymous
--

Bob Bellizzi

Owners should be encouraged to include a Keywords section in their group descriptions. Our group has added it below the primary description (in very small font size so it is less obtrusive), but it is of course scanned by the search engine. All variations of pertinent keywords should be included: plural, singular, compound, etc.

Example- a search for any of the following terms will include our group in the results:

telegraph
telegraphy
radio telegraph
radiotelegraph
radiotelegraphy
straight key
straightkey
straightkeys
etc.

I'd suggest that there should be a separate Keywords section in the group settings. That would prompt new group owners to compose a list of meaningful keywords and would improve the usefulness of groups search generally.

Public display of the keywords section in the group's description could be made optional but the search engine would always include them as hits in its results.

I suppose browse categories such as "Science", "Art", etc., could also be included in the keywords. I don't know that we need to have Groups.io "official" categories; I'd probably never be inclined to use them for my own group searches or group's keywords.

BTW, if you add keywords or otherwise alter your group's description the changes won't appear in the search results for a day or so.

Drew

Hello,

It took much longer than I thought, but the new search cluster is now live and we are mostly caught up with indexing messages. One catch is that Files search currently only works on PDFs (not Word docs, etc). I will be fixing that soon.

Thanks,
Mark

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 10:25 PM, Ant No wrote:

I have looked at the drop down menu of tags.

There is not a drop down on the Publicly Listed Group page and tags are not a site search.  The only way to find a particular group is to hope that the owner included a keyword in the description that would be somewhat limited among groups.  I searched for 'widget' and found exactly one group.  A more generic search for 'group' found over 9000.

Duane