Date   

moderated Re: Hide Email Addresses In Archives fails to mask email addresses in Display Names #bug

 

J,

Imagine a message showing up as being by "Suzanne@..." and your group
has 10 Suzannes (which is actually the case in my group:).
It seems highly unlikely that even two of them have Suzanne as the user part of their actual email address. That would mean that they have unique email domains. On the other hand ten given names of Suzanne in their display names is believable, but would be an issue outside the scope of my report.

Or I'm misunderstanding the suggestion.
I think so.

In a normal working group the member's email address is not displayed in either the lists or the opened messages - only the display name.

Except for members with no Display Name set. I'd be happy to leave that exception and not mask the Groups.io fill-in for a member with a blank display name (that's outside my use case).

In my use case the Display Name shown is the part of the From field that came before the < which delimits the email address proper. And in the cases I have those are plenty diverse enough to identify senders, even with the requested masking of domains.

What if the Display Name for a non-member simply read "Non-member"?
Ack, no. Then users reading the archives couldn't tell who's writing except by opening the message body and hoping for a signature.

Shal


moderated Re: Problem with sorting in Emailed Photos folder #bug #fixed

Anita L
 

i am having the same problem and it is not fixed. If you go to posted i just see blanks after i delete and the blanks stay there. I cant see to organize it in posting and that is what my members look at. So all they are seeing are blanks. Please fix this when you can. I also sent a letter to Mark about this. Please let me know if this can be fixed.
It just started happening about 3 days ago.  Thanks

Anita


moderated Re: Hide Email Addresses In Archives fails to mask email addresses in Display Names #bug

 

What if the Display Name for a non-member simply read "Non-member"? If anyone wants to start actively participating in the group, they can join and you can have control over their Display Name. Because after all, a group is a "group" (of members, generally speaking:)
--
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: Hide Email Addresses In Archives fails to mask email addresses in Display Names #bug

 

Oh, so you can't change their Display Name because they have no member record. Interesting situation. 

However, I don't know if the masking rule for message bodies should generally be applied to Display Names in "normal" groups. I think that in "normal" groups you'd want some sort of comprehensible, complete Display Name in all cases, but if the email address is wiped out because of a masking rule, you'd have nothing. You could go in and change it in a "normal" group, but that might require some detective work in some cases. Imagine a message showing up as being by "Suzanne@..." and your group has 10 Suzannes (which is actually the case in my group:). You'd have to go into email to decipher who it was actually from.

Or I'm misunderstanding the suggestion.
--
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: Create a setting "edits moderated" as compromise to "disable editing" #suggestion

 

p.s. "P" members' edits would, of course, bypass the moderation.
--
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 Hide Email Addresses In Archives fails to mask email addresses in Display Names #bug

 

Mark,

An admittedly unusual situation, but I've a group where many non-member posters have their email address duplicated in the Display Name field of the From they post with.

This causes their full email address to be shown in Topics & Messages lists, as well in opened messages -- even when the archives are viewed by a non-member.

Applying the same rule used for message bodies to email address syntax matched in the Display Name display would resolve this.

Shal


moderated Create a setting "edits moderated" as compromise to "disable editing" #suggestion

 

Currently, the only option a group has for controlling edits is to completely disable editing. The suggestion is to create another option, "edits moderated," that causes message edits to go through moderation in an otherwise unmoderated group.

(To keep it simple, I envision the setting as being independent of and able to be set whether or not the group is unmoderated, but that it would have an effect only if the group is or becomes unmoderated.)
--
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 When a message edit comes through pending, allow editing of the "reason" #suggestion

 

If you or someone edits a message and the edit comes through pending (due to some moderation setting), it's possible to edit the content from within the pending queue, but not the "reason." You can select the text of the reason, but you can't change it.

The suggestion is to allow editing of the "reason" when a message edit comes through pending.
--
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
 

So Reply to OP may not be completely intuitive either as the FUNCTION of the Private button IS what I'm after.  It just needs to be clear what its for and IMO needs to be clear its a reply function at all.  Again a drop down off the current REPLY button makes it clear;  so maybe like this:

Replyv
  • Group
  • Private
Or  as a separate button:  "Reply Privately"  or "Reply Private Email"

Moving it next to the current Reply to group with color in this latter case,  off to the tight without color just makes it counter intuitive.  (you have to think like it's your first time on such a page - would you "get it"?  I didn't after years of posting...I never needed it and when I did I didn't see it...  I looked at the "reply" option (blue text and green) where I would expect to find it and it wasn't there.  I even checked the "More" blue and Nope...


moderated Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • INTERNAL: Better tracking of which mechanism a user is added to the system, to aid in spotting shenanigans.
  • SYSADMIN: Added a lot of storage to increase the amount of historical logs we can keep.
  • INTERNAL: Work on converting to elasticsearch 7.
  • INTERNAL: Optimizations to the change data system that ingests data into the elasticsearch cluster. We were replaying a lot of old LSNs after each restart that we didn't need to.
  • CHANGE: In the email announcing a pending subscription, change rejected to deleted to explain what happens after 14 days.
  • SYSADMIN: Added an additional 6 nodes to the search cluster because searches were taking too long.
  • BUGFIX: After searching/finding a photo, the Download button did nothing.
  • BUGFIX: Viewing the Emailed Photos album using any sort order other than Posted would lead to the wrong order when viewing individual images.
  • CHANGE: For Enterprise SSO, first redirect through the groups.io domain, then to the SSO provider, like we do with Facebook/Google.
  • API: Added start_time parameter to /downloadarchives endpoint.
  • API: Updated docs on /updategroup endpoint, adding some missing parameters.
  • NEW: New premium feature, Send Invites On Join, sends an ICS file of all calendar invites when someone joins a group, and sends an ICS file of cancel notices when someone leaves a group.
  • BUGFIX: Re-write of how we were generating calendar ICS files to clean up some technical debt but more importantly to generate more correct files in regards to repeating events. Previously the ICS files just contained single events for each instance of a repeating event instead of specifying the repeating event itself. This led to issues when cancelling events, both via ICS files as well as when someone tried to delete an event in their (third party) calendar.
  • BUGFIX: Flash notices (like 'You are not allowed to create any more groups today') were not displayed in some instances when your home page was /groups.
  • CHANGE: A group that is not restricted can no longer have Members Visible set to Subscribers, unless it is a subgroup and the parent group is restricted. This is prevent email address harvesting.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Mark


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

Christos G. Psarras
 

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

Christos G. Psarras
 

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