Date   

moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

Haha. I don’t mind, either. I think it actually may have been your post about the “catching up” that pinged my brain this morning. 😊


On Jan 31, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

J,

>>> Correct, I just sent that in as a bug/suggestion. Havent seen it come  thru yet.

Yours did come through; mine said the same thing pretty-much (except I tagged it as #bug) and probably came after yours (ladies first :), so it may have already gotten deleted, which is fine in this case, as long as there is a record of the issue itself documented I personally don't mind from whom it came from.

Cheers,

Christos



--
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

 

J,

>>> Correct, I just sent that in as a bug/suggestion. Havent seen it come  thru yet.

Yours did come through; mine said the same thing pretty-much (except I tagged it as #bug) and probably came after yours (ladies first :), so it may have already gotten deleted, which is fine in this case, as long as there is a record of the issue itself documented I personally don't mind from whom it came from.

Cheers,

Christos



moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

Christos,
Correct, I just sent that in as a bug/suggestion. Havent seen it come  thru yet.


On Jan 31, 2020, at 1:24 PM, Christos G. Psarras <christos@...> wrote:

J,

>>>
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.
<<<

This jolted my memory as I also FF+A on many of my groups, and I had noticed something similarly-weird some time ago but put it aside for the moment back then.  So I just did some testing, and it turns out, when one is a Following-Only user in some group and have the "Auto-Follow-Replies" to ON, when they reply (by email or online) to some topic they were not following before, it will be added to their followed list, but no catch-up emails get sent, so it is a bug in the sense that the functionality isn't there.  I just sent it as a #bug message to beta.

Cheers,
Christos


--
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 Invitation to join group bug I think #bug

Leeni
 

 
I just received an invitation to join a group. I accepted the invitation by clicking the link that said accept the invitation
 
It redirected me to a page with options and then when I scrolled down to the bottom and clicked the blue Join this Group button, it brought me back to the same page that had the same Join this group button there and never let me join the group.
 
I think this is a bug.
 
Leeni
 
   


moderated "autofollow replies" should behave consistently with explicitly following a thread #suggestion

 

Currently, when you explicitly choose to follow a topic, you're sent all the prior emails in that topic (you "catch up" with it). But if you are on autofollow replies, and you reply to a topic, you don't receive all the prior emails, even though you are set to follow the topic by virtue of autofollow replies. This is inconsistent. So the suggestion is that if someone is on auto-follow replies and they reply to a topic, they get all the prior emails in it, just as if they had explicitly followed the topic.
--
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

 

J,

>>>
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.
<<<

This jolted my memory as I also FF+A on many of my groups, and I had noticed something similarly-weird some time ago but put it aside for the moment back then.  So I just did some testing, and it turns out, when one is a Following-Only user in some group and have the "Auto-Follow-Replies" to ON, when they reply (by email or online) to some topic they were not following before, it will be added to their followed list, but no catch-up emails get sent, so it is a bug in the sense that the functionality isn't there.  I just sent it as a #bug message to beta.

Cheers,
Christos


moderated Re: Reply to Options #suggestion

 

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:50 AM, outlawmws wrote:
I never noticed it down on the corner like that so it's not intuitive
I totally agree that it's hard to find. There was a long debate over allowing an explicit "PM" (or whatever you want to call it) button that appears contemporaneously with the Reply button, rather than seeing it only after hitting Reply and having to peek down at the right corner.

That said, "Reply to OP" would be incorrect/misleading terminology, because the Private button does not cause you to reply to the OP of the thread. You're only replying to the person under whose message you reply to.

So in thinking about it, perhaps this it not what you're asking for. The only way to reply privately now to the OP is to go to the first message in the topic and do a private reply below that specific message.
 
--
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

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

6581 - 6600 of 30375