How can you tell which groups.io group is recognized as having the transfer request.   I just created a transfer request for a 'shadow' group after creating a request for the original group... seems to show the same as the original request....

How to tell which groups.io group will get the Yahoo mail list if groups is granted moderator status ??

Hi All,

The optimization I added yesterday did the trick. Search indexing is caught up and is keeping up with group imports.

Thanks,
Mark

Mark, I hope you can help. I'm in a similar sutuation.

I started with $20 premium monthly and saw the charge on my CC.

When I realized I needed a Premium Yearly, I upgraded the account. Settings * Admin * Billing shows the account status as Yearly Premium, but my credit card wasn't charged.

As a result, the transfer process is stuck.

YG has transfer@groups.io as a moderator, but Easy Setup says, "We have accepted the invite to your group. If you have not already, make transfer@groups.io a moderator of your group. Once you have done that, tell us when you are ready to transfer your group."

All fixed. Moving along ok

I suppose it boils down to if you are the kind of person who likes to browse the shelves in a library rather than just ask for a specific book.

I've been doing that since I was ten years old so I do like to browse. Books were my first love (technically comics came first). Books and the two young librarians I was too shy and insecure to talk to much, other than to get my books stamped 😊

Ant👣

Ronaldo, I'm not ignoring you. I answered you in lots of little replies. I didn't realise that's bad form here so they got deleted.

I'm still working out the small differences in function here but I think I can do you a one message inline reply later when I have some more time.

Ant👣

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 09:15 AM, Janis wrote:

The issue to consider is overloading the servers. Including smaller groups in the bulk imports should help solve that problem.

I don't think it would change anything, other than creating additional lines.  As each message is imported, a certain amount of processing has to be done.  Whether it's from a small group or a large group makes no difference.

Duane

The experts in the forums advise against moving members separately and my active members are against that idea as I am because we want members to maintain their ownership of their data that is transferred. We consider it important that identity of owners of files and photos is transferred with the members.   Also, the group has already been exported and will have an account.automatically created for them at groups.io. They like that.

We still have our old group intact at Yahoo and able to email the group at Yahoo as always. And Yahoo is still archiving our messages on the message board. We cannot upload photos and files until we are imported.

I have new members that are anxiously awaiting the arrival of the group so that they can participate. We are on hold on Groups.io until transfer is complete.

The. Issue addressed by my suggestions was to speed up the process for everyone.  It is the monster groups that overload the servers. The issue is whether what I suggested CAN be done. Duane addressed that with his comment. The issue to consider is overloading the servers. Including smaller groups in the bulk imports should help solve that problem.

The suggestion was NOT to jump ahead of members who expedite. You misread and misunderstood!

And it is not driving anyone crazy to wait. It is unfair to have to wait for monster groups. Monster groups are large groups, not expedited groups. 

Additionally, this was addressed to Mark.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 03:15 AM, Duane wrote:

don't know what would happen if everyone suddenly decided to expedite.

Expedited groups go to the head of the line!  I watched out group go from 8 to 9 to 8 to 7 to 8 to 9 to 8.... you get the picture. We are finally imported and everything is in place and working wonderfully! I really wanted to ask Mark for a "point of no return" to lower the anxiety level... but, I didn't... it wouldn't really matter whether you wait at position 11 or at 1, if someone pays to expedite, they cut in line ahead of you. We waited at position #1 for hours, btw. Once our import started, it took about 5-10 minutes for 900 members and 18,000 messages.

My suggestion is to move your members over yourself and allow the group to carry on without the archives while they wait for the import. 

I think Mark has it right. If small groups "jumped the line" for free, it would be terribly unfair to the others, IMO.  It's no fun to wait, but you can always expedite if it's driving you crazy! 

I´ve formatted the article and saved it as a word document.
Is it o.k. to upload it in the files?
Victoria

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:01 PM, dave w wrote:

For reasons of diverging topic, I split a thread but the photos in line were left out, at least their 'code' remains but no pic. IS this usual as I can't find any previous note about this?

Obviously not an ideal situation, which limits the usefulness of the split/ merge functionality,

Then a BUG REPORT it shall be-- seems the sorting problem reported after this could be a corresponding related issue.
I saw that behaviour and just had a WTF moment.
But yes it was there when I typed this October 23.
thanks, davew

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 02:52 PM, Janis wrote:

My suggestion is to separate the queues into 3 categories small groups, medium groups (over 500 members) and large monster groups.

While I'm sure everyone is anxious to get their group transferred, I think Mark has found the most equitable procedure - first in, first out.  As I understand it, only a limited number of processes can be done at one time to limit the loading on the system.  It doesn't make any difference if it's a large group or a small group, it's still a process.  For those that feel they can't wait, he's included the option of paying an expedite fee to "jump the line".  I admit that I don't know what would happen if everyone suddenly decided to expedite. ;>)

Duane

Thank you Judy.

Turns out it is a problem so I'll guide the owner to fix it.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 09:10 AM, Bob Buxton wrote:

I hope this would address the OP's aims, be more flexible and be consistent with the use of hashtags for categorization across the web

If groups used them consistently, didn't abuse them and I could use Boolean operators then maybe. As Ronaldo pointed out tag and keyword abuse is an old game. Harder to moderate than a choose a single cat system.

I think across the web overstates it a bit. Hashtags are relatively new. Heavily focused on social media but admittedly spreading, mostly by the efforts of people trying to sell things. Or so it seems to me.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 04:20 PM, RCardona wrote:

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.

Yes, I understand how a multi keyword search works. It's a standard function of all search engines. Trust me, you may not but, I do need a way to exclude terms and that's Boolean operators. They were invented for a reason. Not because no one's as clever as Mark and didn't realise they were unnecessary.

You seen to have missed the part where I said I don't always know what I'm looking for until I find it. I did give an example. A real one that happened.

You'll still be able to do things your way. Why do you care if there's another way too. Why want to control other people's choices? I don't want to remove any of yours.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:33 PM, ro-esp wrote:

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

Well the system I propose does. With our  intelligence not AI. It's just a matter of being able to sort the list better so you have smaller chunks to wade through. That's the entire point of the proposal.