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: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Leeni
-------Original Message-------
From: J_Catlady
Date: 12/27/2019 10:19:16 AM
Subject: Re: [beta] Feature requests/Canny after two weeks As to hashtags…those may be fine for those who understand them and working with them. It's too bad they weren't simply named "labels" instead of "hashtags," because (although they do have some optional advanced functions in groups.io), that's really all they are. You can tell anybody who doesn't understand "hashtags" that it's just a fancy word for "labels."-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Request for Full Date-Time Stamp in Activity Logs
#suggestion
JediPirx
@ugcheleuce wrote on 2019/12/25 03:25 :
RFE: Three wishlist items w.r.t. Notes in Admin > MembersI third these wishlist requests. I would also request that the Activity log specify full date and time stamp so that I can stitch together events surrounding a member, from different sources, in the Notes section. YahooGroup displayed date-timestamps in their Activity logs as : yyyy-mm-dd HH:mm:ss (24-hour/military time) Stan/elgio
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Moderators at GMF do a great job and moderation is a necessary feature for a help focused or improvement focused group.
If we switch from Canny to Hashtags in tge Beta group, it will work better if moderated. It will keep tbe focus on requests rather than tbe type of silky battle tgat has occured earlier in this thread. I do not want to waste my time reading that. We should not have to wade through battles to read feature requests. Hashtags can work just great, but only if topucs are restricted to improvements and not allowed to devolve into off topic battles. Maintain focus! We are here to see improvement suggestions for the site We want to read only improvement suggestions. We need to find the relevant ideas quickly! Do not waste our time with other posts!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:06 AM, txercoupemuseum.org wrote:
As to hashtags…those may be fine for those who understand them and working with them.It's too bad they weren't simply named "labels" instead of "hashtags," because (although they do have some optional advanced functions in groups.io), that's really all they are. You can tell anybody who doesn't understand "hashtags" that it's just a fancy word for "labels." -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
My vote is for using the Hashtags option!
I just looked at Canny for the first time. I would prefer to do everything on the groups.io .site instead. It is easier to access the Beta group and groups.io has a much better appearance than Canny. Plus we are already familiar with the Beta group. Some people only make suggestions every few years. They are not goinfg to find Canny. I also agree with Sandi Dickenson that all group owners should be able to participate in suggesting improvements regardless of whether tge group is basic or premium. If we are required to use a hashtag when posting, hashtags will automatically track quantity of requests. And the group should be moderated to keep other types of posts out of the group. Hashtags can relate to possible tyles of requests--for, example, photos, files, attachments, email service, membership, settings, etc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:23 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
possibility of switching off Canny and using hashtags instead, and if we do, how that would look/work. Hi Mark, I would support hashtags as a way to organize the various suggestions and determine how much support they garner. When Apple changed their photo storage structure back in 2013ish, I moved to SmugMug. I was impressed with the way SmugMug collaborated with all their user payment tiers. They collected the top 10 suggestions they felt they could implement and then gave their users 3 votes to place among those 10 suggestions. Then SM chose one of the three to begin working on. In the years since, many great site improvements have been acheived, compatibility issues have been resolved and app features added. I can envision something similar happening with hastags. At the very least they will assist in sorting out what degree of support there is for a particular suggestion. Maybe then you could select those which are most doable for you and then use a data poll to see which garner the greatest support from your users. I have mixed feelings on giving all the decision making about new features to Premium Groups. They already get elevated support and features that basic groups don't have access to. When it comes to features, I would like to see suggestions be open to everyone. Some Basic groups see much heavier participation than are seen in Premium Groups and some Basic Group Owners have a deeper understanding of the ways that their groups work because they have been at it a long time either on this platform or others. Some Basic Groups are philanthropic or non profits and they have different needs from some Premium groups that act as listservs or services. I do believe that Basic Group Owners/Mods have ideas that might garner a lot of support if they were allowed to post them. As would everyday users that are in non paying groups. Thanks for bringing up this topic. -- Sandi Dickenson ASG Volunteers Group.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Apologies to Mark and the group. I intended to send that last message privately and got in a hurry - deleted.
Duane
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Testing new feature request/tracking system
I liked the Trello board. Simple, clear, room for comments. Just archive the out of date stuff.
Maybe it's too simple and not high tech enough? Patti
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
txercoupemuseum.org
I’’ve looked at Canny here…didn’t get much from that visit.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
As to hashtags…those may be fine for those who understand them and working with them. Not so much for those of us older folks (who tend to start/own forums) who want solutions that “just work”. If my people want to use hashtags, fine; they're available. But like AppleScript, hashtags are not a function I wish to learn. I apologize if what follows is considered “off topic”. If this isn’t the “right” place to bring these concerns, I will gladly “repackage” them if given clear instructions. I’ve followed the many posts on this list since late November (yeah, I’m a newbie here) to try to better understand the culture” here at Groups.io. While I think Mark has walked on water through this period, I see nothing documented that would identify precisely WHAT suggestions/improvements are “on the list” and, of these, which he is seriously considering for implementation whether soon or at some future point in time. Most group owners have their hands full just riding herd on their own group(s). They want a simple series of interfaces that “just work”. There seems to be a presumption that the alphabet soup of forums here is clear. Not to me. I ASSUME “GMF” is a group moderator’s forum. Haven’t joined. Should I? WHY? What are the appropriate steps to join? Is there a “GOF” (group owner’s forum”)? I would describe a “bug” as behavior that is either unplanned or unpredictable…coders or administrators might know this but few users could. Is not a “feature” just an existing function? I see MANY of these no one seems to have explained (and posted) in reasonable detail. When signed in as “owner”, the “Subscription” tab is pretty clear as is. “Admin”, not at all. By playing around with “Members” I have found that the “default sort” is by the date “joined”, but one can sort by any of the headings just by clicking it. Why isn’t that stated anywhere? Our group doesn’t use “invites” or “Direct Add”s. Reading about “Integrations” makes me suspect this is something best turned off because members might inadvertently violate copyright laws. At present the most important concern within my group is fuzzy photos. It appears we are not alone. Without more information from Groups.io on how all this works “under the hood” and why, I can’t explain why posted pictures are unacceptably fuzzy or if/when the issue will be addressed. It would seem this issue affects any and all groups that allow photo attachments. How do we make the most of the tools at our disposal? In “Settings” there is NO explanation as to advantages/disadvantages of “Database” “Max Image Size” options (or examples). Same for “Max size” in Photos, Email and Wiki. In “Files” why is there no “Max Image Size” option (or examples)? How does one correlate the “resolution” choices offered with standard graphic terms such as dots per inch (dpi) or image or document “{data size" in kB? What is the scan/storage method that gives the best image with minimum storage overhead, etc? It’s not a “solution” to post 1MB photos as files that then eat up a group’s storage at an unacceptable rate, yet I don’t see an ongoing discussion anywhereIt would be of considerable benefit to owners new here if there were a “go to” sheet for each subject that explains how the present system works and how to get the most out of it as it presently exists. Supposedly simple black and white text documents should be clear at "minimal data” size. How do we do that?. Similar “issue” for B&W photos and then for color photos. Can I, as Owner, pull a photo or file, manually resize it, and replace it. Can I manually assign numbers to these (or photos) for ease of reference? A MAJOR constraint for groups that are (or wish to be) “free” is the 1GB limit on storage. If one has a subgroup, that becomes 1/2 GB. That’s not practical in the long term even with occasional document or photo posts. Don’t use Aliases, Domains or Promote. Would like to see message numbers shown in “activity” appended to posts in “Messages” for easy cross reference of specific replies within threads. In “donations” there is no information as to how to withdraw funds donated. There’s a nice breakdown of current group storage utilization in the “Billing Overview”, but that’s a subject typically checked once a year. In my humble opinion this information is something to constantly monitor to assure the group’s activity storage usage is consistent with our data limit(s) in the long term. I Have yet to see any discussion as to whether next year at renewal time my existing “Premium” subgroup can EASILY become a separate “free group” with it’s own 1 GB storage entitlement. Anyone else wonder about that? Best! William Bayne —
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
What is “Canny”?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Dec 27, 2019, at 1:23 AM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Mark,
I thought of another way we could address this, using just the betaThis sounds very familiar: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/24224958 We could use a designated hashtag for feature requests ...I thought that was the only sort of topic that should be in beta. And if all messages have it it isn't really useful. (and maybe another for bugs)I thought those were to be sent to support. Or we could switch to something like my proposal.I'm in favor of dogfooding it here in beta. That will likely encourage the development of some supporting features which will have utility in other groups. Shal
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
All, Please, let's limit this thread to only discussing the possibility of switching off Canny and using hashtags instead, and if we do, how that would look/work. Mark
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
On Dec 26, 2019, at 6:34 PM, J_Catlady <@J_Catlady> wrote: Agreed, that is the concept of a peer to peer group (I’ve peeked into GMF recently and several instances of wrong info posted, or info lacking - I’ve seen sent one or two of these to Shal offlist),Your correction of misinformation should be sent to the list so that it could be helpful to the misinformed and the misinformer(s). Sending a complaint to Shal offlist is merely criticizing him for allowing what you perceive as misinformation to not have been Moderated to your satisfaction. Try giving him (and the other Moderators) the chance to allow your 'correct information' to be helpful.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 06:37 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
No one has yet actually argued why total moderation on GMF is so crucial, in response to a number of us (three, so far) who have dared express our opinion that it change from moderated to NuM.No one has said it's crucial. It's my understanding that GMF, here and Yahoo, has been fully moderated for about 20 years. I think that if it's worked this long, it can't be broken too bad. There are now 5 moderators, so delays on approvals are usually minimal. The things that take the longest are removing the ads, excessive quotes, and other extraneous things in the incoming messages. Duane
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
>>>
Yet opinions are getting shut down just on the basis that they are opinions and we shouldn't be expressing them. To paraphrase the politicians, that's a process argument, not a factual one. No one has yet actually argued why total moderation on GMF is so crucial, in response to a number of us (three, so far) who have dared express our opinion that it change from moderated to NuM. <<< My sentiments exactly; I've been watching this thread with interest, and nobody has yet to actually provide any real substance as to the why; the only replies seem to be douchy insults and the typical childish take-it-or-leave-it attitude BS, and unsurprisingly-enough, those gems of answers are no less provided by the supposedly "real-experts" to the supposedly "pseudo-experts" because they (gasp!) dared express a different opinion ... I mean, really?? Are you guys incapable of participating in a civilized debate, offer a well-structured point/reply as to why some idea is not preferable, and instead devolve into 5th grade schoolyard postering?? Cheers, Christos
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
KWKloeber
Opinion vs dialog
hint/test - when one feels the need to defend oneself rather than explain or clarify a post (‘er message that is) one has crossed that broad gray line.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Charles Roberts
I promise not to take "future silence as agreement", but I certainly will take it with appreciation.
Thanks, Chuck
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Just one more thing! (Kidding 😊)
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
Simon Hedges
Hi,
I think that tagging would be good to distinguish between bugs, new features, and other types of email. But less good, I think at enabling progress on reporting on specific bugs and new features.
For example how are features to be accurately identified for progress tracking (e.g. when we have dozens of emails with titles like “improve reporting” or “adding users” or “poll improvements” or “better colours”, some of which are about precisely the same thing, and some of which are not, and each potentially with several replies? And probably some of those emails will have several suggestions in, some of which may get picked up for improvements, and some not.
How will it be possible to search for a list of the currently requested features, any response to them, and a likely priority order?
I run a software development team, and the thought of enabling my users to track progress on the changes they request without a structured bug/feature list, gives me the heebie jeebies. We use Jira, which is fine, but very expensive for any significant number of users (i.e. more than 10), so I’m absolutely not suggesting that. But maybe the groups.io database function could be used to work in conjunction with the emails – whereby emails are used to submit requests for new features, but a database entry is used (maintained by the change manager) as the master status for that feature.
Just a suggestion. I do like a list.
Simon
From: main@beta.groups.io <main@beta.groups.io> On Behalf Of RCardona
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 6:54 PM To: main@beta.groups.io Subject: Re: [beta] Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
I concur, consolidating all functions to the beta group and "canning" Canny makes the most sense. On 12/26/19 12:02 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
moderated
Re: Feature requests/Canny after two weeks
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 04:28 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
mark has basically reinforced that being an opinion-oriented battle group isn’t the purposeIf you read back, you will see that what Mark actually said was not to dispute someone's feature idea and to let him do that. In this thread he has specifically asked for opinions. Yet opinions are getting shut down just on the basis that they are opinions and we shouldn't be expressing them. To paraphrase the politicians, that's a process argument, not a factual one. No one has yet actually argued why total moderation on GMF is so crucial, in response to a number of us (three, so far) who have dared express our opinion that it change from moderated to NuM. I'm done here. Don't take future silence for agreement. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|||
|
|