Date   

moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

outlawmws
 

OK, if that is what it does is a direct reply to the OP then yes - I never noticed it down on the corner like that so it's not intuitive -   So I'lI change the ask to move that to a pull down option for the "reply" button, or a second button next to reply, if it is a reply just to the sender alone.(I just KNOW the average person will not know about the Private button's purpose, if they even notice it down there)  At a minimum "Reply to OP" would be more descriptive than "Private"

The Blue "Arrow Reply" button could also have a companion the same way?

BTW  I'm not a newb to GIO,  been here with my initial group over 2 years, but this other group is new with new use cases...


moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

Realized that since I’m FF, I saw the original message but not Mark’s, and replied to the original message before seeing Mark’s. Later I saw Mark’s reply online and was momentarily flummoxed. (I didn’t receive it in email as a catch-up to the thread). This might point to some sort of hole with FF. I have to think about it.


On Jan 31, 2020, at 11:18 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

Just seeing Mark’s reply belatedly. I think I’m missing msgs on my phone. In any case, I had the same reaction: use Private Reply, or I’m missing something.


On Jan 30, 2020, at 9:18 PM, outlawmws via Groups.Io <Outlawmws@...> wrote:

There are Reply settings with options for reply to:
  • Sender
  • Group
  • Sender and group
What I think is needed is an option for 
  • Sender OR Group
  • Maybe select a default for one or the other in the settings
This would entail a selection in the Reply page for the responding party to select one of the other.  

Why?  

One of my groups has this need to support the ability to contact a member, for instance when an offer for selling something comes up.  I want them to be able to reply directly to the person making the offer, and not fill the mostly technical discussions with back and forth for the item being sold  - to take the sake of the item off line from the group.  Selling things is NOT the primary purpose of the group, hens the ask. 

Having every reply go to both sender and the group for every reply just increases Email traffic unnecessarily,

Another option might be a three way selection option on the reply page for, reply to: 
  • Sender
  • Group 
  • Sender and group 
Again an option to select one of the three options by the responding party - This would be OK for my purposes also.
And agian, maybe select a default for one of the three in the settings

--
J

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


--
J

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


moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

Just seeing Mark’s reply belatedly. I think I’m missing msgs on my phone. In any case, I had the same reaction: use Private Reply, or I’m missing something.


On Jan 30, 2020, at 9:18 PM, outlawmws via Groups.Io <Outlawmws@...> wrote:

There are Reply settings with options for reply to:
  • Sender
  • Group
  • Sender and group
What I think is needed is an option for 
  • Sender OR Group
  • Maybe select a default for one or the other in the settings
This would entail a selection in the Reply page for the responding party to select one of the other.  

Why?  

One of my groups has this need to support the ability to contact a member, for instance when an offer for selling something comes up.  I want them to be able to reply directly to the person making the offer, and not fill the mostly technical discussions with back and forth for the item being sold  - to take the sake of the item off line from the group.  Selling things is NOT the primary purpose of the group, hens the ask. 

Having every reply go to both sender and the group for every reply just increases Email traffic unnecessarily,

Another option might be a three way selection option on the reply page for, reply to: 
  • Sender
  • Group 
  • Sender and group 
Again an option to select one of the three options by the responding party - This would be OK for my purposes also.
And agian, maybe select a default for one of the three in the settings

--
J

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


moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

Mark is vetting new topics, and has vetted this one, so I’m confused because it seems the Private Reply option in creating the reply already exists and covers this need.


On Jan 30, 2020, at 9:18 PM, outlawmws via Groups.Io <Outlawmws@...> wrote:

There are Reply settings with options for reply to:
  • Sender
  • Group
  • Sender and group
What I think is needed is an option for 
  • Sender OR Group
  • Maybe select a default for one or the other in the settings
This would entail a selection in the Reply page for the responding party to select one of the other.  

Why?  

One of my groups has this need to support the ability to contact a member, for instance when an offer for selling something comes up.  I want them to be able to reply directly to the person making the offer, and not fill the mostly technical discussions with back and forth for the item being sold  - to take the sake of the item off line from the group.  Selling things is NOT the primary purpose of the group, hens the ask. 

Having every reply go to both sender and the group for every reply just increases Email traffic unnecessarily,

Another option might be a three way selection option on the reply page for, reply to: 
  • Sender
  • Group 
  • Sender and group 
Again an option to select one of the three options by the responding party - This would be OK for my purposes also.
And agian, maybe select a default for one of the three in the settings

--
J

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


moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 08:29 AM, outlawmws wrote:

What I think is needed is an option for

  • Sender OR Group
  • Maybe select a default for one or the other in the settings

There's already a button labeled Private that lets you send the message to the sender instead of the group. Or am I missing something?

Thanks, Mark


moderated Re: improve/fix logging, etc., of "set display name via email" action #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

The current wording makes it appear as if this was something that the user had initiated and performed, and it would be nice if the wording made it clearer that this was something that was done by the system and not by the user.


moderated Reply to Options #suggestion

outlawmws
 

There are Reply settings with options for reply to:
  • Sender
  • Group
  • Sender and group
What I think is needed is an option for 
  • Sender OR Group
  • Maybe select a default for one or the other in the settings
This would entail a selection in the Reply page for the responding party to select one of the other.  

Why?  

One of my groups has this need to support the ability to contact a member, for instance when an offer for selling something comes up.  I want them to be able to reply directly to the person making the offer, and not fill the mostly technical discussions with back and forth for the item being sold  - to take the sake of the item off line from the group.  Selling things is NOT the primary purpose of the group, hens the ask. 

Having every reply go to both sender and the group for every reply just increases Email traffic unnecessarily,

Another option might be a three way selection option on the reply page for, reply to: 
  • Sender
  • Group 
  • Sender and group 
Again an option to select one of the three options by the responding party - This would be OK for my purposes also.
And agian, maybe select a default for one of the three in the settings


moderated Re: One day's difference in date shown on member page vs member download #bug

Duane
 

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 08:21 AM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
Dates and times displayed on the web site are adjusted for your own local time zone
To be a little more specific, it's the time zone you've set, if any.  The default is PST/PDT.

Duane


moderated Re: One day's difference in date shown on member page vs member download #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:47 PM, Rick Nakroshis wrote:
I just found a member that is shown as joining the group on January 29th, 2020, but in the member download, she is listed as having joined on January 28th, 2020.
Rick -- Dates and times displayed on the web site are adjusted for your own local time zone, while the group export is likely done in whatever groups.io's native time zone is (looks like Pacific time -8:00). Check the entire date/timestamp and make appropriate adjustments when comparing the two.

Bruce


moderated Re: System allows multiple, identical tags on a message #bug

 

Also, the bug is the fault of the system, not of email, because in my test I created the topic online, not via email. The system removed the duplicate in the web version of the message, but sends out the first and all subsequent emails in the topic with the duplicate.


On Jan 31, 2020, at 5:51 AM, J_Catlady via Groups.Io <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:

In response to Duane, I see nothing about only the online version being fixed. The bug mentioned by the OP still exists in the email version of the messsges. So I’m confused by what you’re saying. 


On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:57 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:31 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I ran a test and find that this happens only in the email.
The online indicator was fixed last week.  First item on https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/23941

Duane

--
J

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


--
J

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


moderated Re: System allows multiple, identical tags on a message #bug

 

In response to Duane, I see nothing about only the online version being fixed. The bug mentioned by the OP still exists in the email version of the messsges. So I’m confused by what you’re saying. 


On Jan 31, 2020, at 4:57 AM, Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:31 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I ran a test and find that this happens only in the email.
The online indicator was fixed last week.  First item on https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/23941

Duane

--
J

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


moderated Re: System allows multiple, identical tags on a message #bug

Duane
 

On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:31 PM, J_Catlady wrote:
I ran a test and find that this happens only in the email.
The online indicator was fixed last week.  First item on https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/23941

Duane


moderated Re: One day's difference in date shown on member page vs member download #bug

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:47 AM, Rick Nakroshis wrote:
I just found a member that is shown as joining the group on January 29th, 2020, but in the member download, she is listed as having joined on January 28th, 2020.
What do you mean by "the member download"?

Samuel


moderated Re: System allows multiple, identical tags on a message #bug

 

Funny, I saw the double #bug #bug tag on this message in the email but it's not in the web version. I thought at first that maybe Mark deleted the duplicate, but I ran a test and find that this happens only in the email.
--
J

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


moderated Re: suggested change to use hashtag to control sending megs #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Bob 

the suggestion wasn’t meant to be perfect, and I’m sure others could have stated it more clearly the first time  

virtually any message circulation function could be handled by exchanging emails among a defined list. So why join Gio?  Just “reply all”. 

this is just a suggestion that would be very easy to direct msgs to certain lists of group members that would be clunky doing it via subgroups. Could it be done via subgroups? Sure, but one could also say why hashtags?  Just create a subgroup for different groups of topics. That’s an absurd example but it meant just to point out that anything can be done another way, even if that other way is more clunky.   

(Believe it or not one of our Y! group members got fed up and started his own site a few yrs ago — and set up separate message exchanges for about two dozen types of topics (essentially hashtags). Mannnn what a PITA mess that turned out to be.) 


moderated System allows multiple, identical tags on a message #bug

Rick N
 

See the subject line.  The system should only allow single use of a tag on a subject line.


moderated One day's difference in date shown on member page vs member download #bug

Rick N
 

I just found a member that is shown as joining the group on January 29th, 2020, but in the member download, she is listed as having joined on January 28th, 2020.


moderated Re: suggested change to use hashtag to control sending megs #suggestion

KWKloeber
 

Ronaldo 
no, no, no.  No member would be required to pick from hashtags.  Merely, if, just say for example, a message was to be sent to only one select group, the members in that group could be in a list that IDs  them as part of that group.  Simple exampe

say there’s 25 moderators. 

thr could be on a list, for example I’ll call it “mod-list” 
I’m suggesting a feature that using a hashtag, a post could be easily directed to that list and only that list. 

so a topic might look like this example (I’m using a different tag symbol $$ just so it’s obvious). 

Special meeting notice $$mod-list. 

(“message body”)

the message would be sent out to everyone on the “mod-list”. 

the lists could be for any purpose or purposes that any group found helpful for their use. It would make sense to limit the number of lists to a reasonable number (say 5 for example).)


moderated Bouncing Member List Management screen enhancement #suggestion

 

Hi Mark,

The way the Bouncing Member
list management screen works currently, unless if one has anything but maybe 5-6 list entries, if there is a bunch to go though and check the bounce history screen, the constant back and forth can be cumbersome and time-consuming, even if using both mouse and keyboard shortcuts and/or doing it in multiple tabs.

It would be helpful when one is at the list level, to have some indication of why the members are bouncing, since one could then do a quick first-pass this way and eliminate the ones that are dead (unknown addresses, etc); this should help cut down in the time needed to do the maintenance.  Since it seems all the member management screens share the same underlying functionality so modifying columns may be not desirable, a low-impact way to do this could be to have the blue and red Bouncing badges display not just the "Bouncing" or "Bounced" text, but also the latest entry from the "Recent Bounces", something to this effect:




Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: suggested change to use hashtag to control sending megs #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

After reading the previous original plus 6 replies, I feel we need to identify a few things first.
What is Groups.io?  It is an entity that provides the ability to build online groups that may also function as mailing lists.

Ken, what you are asking for is the ability to have preset list to allow members of a group at groups.io to send emails to a subset of the members of a group (or subgroup?).
To me that is the current definition of a subgroup.
Or, much more simply, it is the definition of a mailing list i.e.a list of people's email addresses kept as a single unit on or available to one's own computer(s).

As J's postings and the lack of  conversation/interest about the subject indicate to me:
Your idea/suggestion is quite incomplete, lacks clear & complete definition.
Why complicate groups.io's current operating mode with this "feature" when it's easily defined through functions in current email applications?

Bob Bellizzi 

5861 - 5880 of 29648