Date   

moderated Re: Changes to new basic groups #update

Linda Prain
 

Wow.  I can't believe I have a need for a new group and am now just seeing I just missed this change by 1 day.  I really wish you would have emailed all your group Admins and owners for those of us that don't come to this beta. group site on a regular basis.  This is an important enough change that it seems prudent to make sure that your groups owners knew about it in advance.  

Outside of that frustration, can you give me some guidelines as to how files, photos or attachments will be handled in a new basic (i.e. free) group?  Are they simply not allowed?  Are they retained for a short period of time and then deleted?  I'd like to understand where I can find more about the new basic functionality to ascertain if this is going to work for us.  A premium service is simply something we can't afford on an ongoing basis.  Kind regards, Linda Prain


moderated Re: show descriptions in databaes overview #suggestion

Duane
 

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 10:08 AM, Victoria wrote:
in the databases overview it would be nice to see the descriptions of the databases
If you put something in the Short Description when creating/editing the database, that will show on the listing of available databases.

Duane


moderated show descriptions in databaes overview #suggestion

 

in the databases overview it would be nice to see the descriptions of the databases


moderated Calendar RSVPed button does not work in Month, Week and Day views #fixed #bug

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

the calendar RSVPed button to only show events that you have RSVPed to does not work for Month, Week and Day views. It seems fine in List view though.

Regards,
Andy


moderated Re: Direct Add to subgroup: stay on Direct Add page after adding; allow bulk searches #suggestion #done

Dan Halbert
 

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:49 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 09:48 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

It would be nice if the interface stayed on the Direct Add page. This seems like an easy change.

This is now done. Also, it will now display a flash notice indicating success.
Thank you, Mark!


The flash notice is displayed at the top of an effectively blank page so you still need to click the Direct Add option from the left side menu to redisplay the input fields.
Andy, I do not see what you mean. I added myself to a test list, and it went back to the Direct Add page, showing the first page of all the members of the parent group, as it did originally. This was on desktop, not mobile, and it was in a subgroup.


moderated Re: Direct Add to subgroup: stay on Direct Add page after adding; allow bulk searches #suggestion #done

Andy Wedge
 

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 09:48 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

It would be nice if the interface stayed on the Direct Add page. This seems like an easy change.

This is now done. Also, it will now display a flash notice indicating success.
The flash notice is displayed at the top of an effectively blank page so you still need to click the Direct Add option from the left side menu to redisplay the input fields.

Regards,
Andy


moderated Re: Direct Add to subgroup: stay on Direct Add page after adding; allow bulk searches #suggestion #done

 

On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 1:47 PM Dan Halbert <halbert@...> wrote:

I am often asked to add multiple people from the main group to a subgroup. Currently this can be somewhat tedious. I have two ideas that I think might make this easier:

1.  Right now I search for each person, check their box, and add them, one at a time. After I click "Add Member", the web interface goes back to the Members page, instead of staying on the Direct Add page. So I have to click "Direct Add' In the left sidebar, and go back to that page. It would be nice if the interface stayed on the Direct Add page. This seems like an easy change.

This is now done. Also, it will now display a flash notice indicating success.
 

2. It would be nice if I could do a bulk search. I could search for multiple people, as both names as email addresses. Right now, the search box does an AND of all the search terms, so I can't search for multiple people with different names. Suppose, for instance, that the search box were multi-line: all the terms on a single line would do an AND search, and the results for each line would be OR'd. For example:

This member search uses a different mechanism than the `normal` Members search, which is why it doesn't currently support booleans. I hope to switch it over, but I'm not sure when it will happen.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Make Sticky Topic show at top of Messages view #suggestion

 

Hi All,

I am in favor of this change, but it will require a decent amount of work to implement. (Nerdy details: efficiently paging through a very large database table, like the messages table with its 164M rows), is difficult as is. Add in the fact that the sticky bit is set on a different table. That means for me to make this work at scale will require some sort of caching or materialized view which doesn't exist right now).

So unfortunately it may be awhile before it's done.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Message Approval #suggestion #done

 

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:03 AM Duane <txpigeon@...> wrote:
I normally read and approve pending messages one at a time.  Now and then I select all pending messages and click Approve.  Most of the time it doesn't make any difference, but I noticed an anomaly this morning.  It appears that the messages are actually processed for approval in the order listed on the pending page.  In my case, it shows as newest first.  This can lead to a follow up reply being posted to the group before the initial reply.  I believe it would be more appropriate for messages to be processed in the order received when multiple messages are being approved.


When approving multiple messages at once on the website, we now start to process them in order that we originally received them. Because of the nature of the queuing system used to process messages, it's not 100% guaranteed that the messages will always be added to the archives in that order, but most likely they will.

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Cannot reply from +owner address #suggestion

Chris Jones
 

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 03:49 PM, Bruce Bowman wrote:
This post was prompted by a question that was recently asked in GMF.
I made the same request in April 2018; see #16576.

Chris


moderated Re: Special Notice vs Special Message inconsistency #bug

Bruce Bowman
 

On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 10:49 AM, Andy Wedge wrote:
Also, we can currently search the activity log for 'sent message' and 'sent message requiring approval' but there's no search for 'sent special notice'.   I am not sure why messages with a 'special' attribute are referred to as a 'notice' when those without are just 'messages'. Perhaps using two terms to distinguish them ('Special' and 'Notice') is overkill and the current term 'special message' as seen in the activity log is a better description.
As best I can tell, there is no way to isolate messages sent as special notices via a search of the activity log. You can enter "sent special message" in the search box but it still turns up nothing.

In addition, there are some ways that a special notice can be sent to the group without generating a log entry at all (e.g.: a #cal-reminder).

One option would be to have the [Special] subject tag -- currently added to special-notice emails -- retained in the message archive as well. But my actual preference to identify special notices would be to include a "Special" filter in the pull-down menu at upper left (i.e.: analogous to what is currently available for Polls).

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Cannot reply from +owner address #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

When starting a New Topic, a pull-down menu for the From address allows me to select whether I'm posting from my home address or the +owner address. This option is missing when replying to an existing topic. The reason for this difference in behavior is not apparent to me.

This post was prompted by a question that was recently asked in GMF.

Thanks for your consideration,
Bruce


moderated Special Notice vs Special Message inconsistency #bug

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

picking up on a GMF topic about searching for special notices that have been sent it has highlighted the fact that the documentation and  web dialogue pages refer to sending Special Notices but these get referred to in the activity log as Special Messages. Can we get some consistency for these terms please?

Also, we can currently search the activity log for 'sent message' and 'sent message requiring approval' but there's no search for 'sent special notice'.   I am not sure why messages with a 'special' attribute are referred to as a 'notice' when those without are just 'messages'. Perhaps using two terms to distinguish them ('Special' and 'Notice') is overkill and the current term 'special message' as seen in the activity log is a better description.

Regards,
Andy


moderated Message Approval #suggestion #done

Duane
 

I normally read and approve pending messages one at a time.  Now and then I select all pending messages and click Approve.  Most of the time it doesn't make any difference, but I noticed an anomaly this morning.  It appears that the messages are actually processed for approval in the order listed on the pending page.  In my case, it shows as newest first.  This can lead to a follow up reply being posted to the group before the initial reply.  I believe it would be more appropriate for messages to be processed in the order received when multiple messages are being approved.

Thank you,
Duane


moderated Re: Retroactive Topic Locking? #misc #suggestion

 

I don't know about the email commands, but the suggestion for the website strikes me as the height of simplicity.

Something needs to be done to remedy this. Yes, it's really broken. Clearly if you're asking whether it's broken you have not yet experienced it. It's one thing to intellectually argue that "it does what it says it does," and that "locking the topic again the next evening seems logical." It's another to experience being completely unable to resurrect a topic simply because it was locked due to group time-out, and before even realizing that, to experience a manually unlocked topic coming back as locked over and over again. It is completely unintuitive and (I would argue) unexpected. At least, it was highly unexpected by me, and I have been aware and appreciative of the auto-lock and auto-moderate feature since the day it was implemented. Only later did I start to experience this issue.
--
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: Retroactive Topic Locking? #misc #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 08:00 PM, JohnF wrote:
Here's my suggestion. If a moderator is actively unlocking a topic that follows the auto-lock rules (via the web), pop up a message indicating that the topic was locked per the rules, and does the moderator wish to exclude the topic from the rules, Yes/No? If No, then it will lock again later that evening. If Yes, it will be excluded from the auto-lock.

If this is being done by email commands, a message could be sent requesting the same answer. If the moderator doesn't respond, that's treated as a No.
I'm not aware of any way to lock/unlock a topic via email commands.

If this is being done by API, there could be an optional setting to make it permanent or not as part of the request. If not specified, it defaults to No.

If a topic is excluded from auto-locking, a nondescript message would indicate this when a moderator with locking privileges views the topic on the web, mostly to prevent bug reports ("Hey, why isn't this topic being auto-locked????")

I think that will be the friendliest way to do it. It could also use a #noautolock hashtag, but I don't want to encourage hashtag pollution.
This strikes me as really complicated. 

Backing up, I have to ask...is this really broken? If so, it seems to me that the fix is worse than the problem.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Retroactive Topic Locking? #misc #suggestion

 

And do the same for auto-moderation when the group is set to auto-moderate.

On Aug 19, 2020, at 5:14 PM, J_Catlady via groups.io <j.olivia.catlady=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

Sounds 100% good to me.
On Aug 19, 2020, at 5:00 PM, JohnF via groups.io <johnf1686=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Here's my suggestion. If a moderator is actively unlocking a topic that follows the auto-lock rules (via the web), pop up a message indicating that the topic was locked per the rules, and does the moderator wish to exclude the topic from the rules, Yes/No? If No, then it will lock again later that evening. If Yes, it will be excluded from the auto-lock.

If this is being done by email commands, a message could be sent requesting the same answer. If the moderator doesn't respond, that's treated as a No.

If this is being done by API, there could be an optional setting to make it permanent or not as part of the request. If not specified, it defaults to No.

If a topic is excluded from auto-locking, a nondescript message would indicate this when a moderator with locking privileges views the topic on the web, mostly to prevent bug reports ("Hey, why isn't this topic being auto-locked????")

I think that will be the friendliest way to do it. It could also use a #noautolock hashtag, but I don't want to encourage hashtag pollution.

JohnF



--
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: Retroactive Topic Locking? #misc #suggestion

 

Sounds 100% good to me.

On Aug 19, 2020, at 5:00 PM, JohnF via groups.io <johnf1686=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Here's my suggestion. If a moderator is actively unlocking a topic that follows the auto-lock rules (via the web), pop up a message indicating that the topic was locked per the rules, and does the moderator wish to exclude the topic from the rules, Yes/No? If No, then it will lock again later that evening. If Yes, it will be excluded from the auto-lock.

If this is being done by email commands, a message could be sent requesting the same answer. If the moderator doesn't respond, that's treated as a No.

If this is being done by API, there could be an optional setting to make it permanent or not as part of the request. If not specified, it defaults to No.

If a topic is excluded from auto-locking, a nondescript message would indicate this when a moderator with locking privileges views the topic on the web, mostly to prevent bug reports ("Hey, why isn't this topic being auto-locked????")

I think that will be the friendliest way to do it. It could also use a #noautolock hashtag, but I don't want to encourage hashtag pollution.

JohnF


--
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: Retroactive Topic Locking? #misc #suggestion

 

Here's my suggestion. If a moderator is actively unlocking a topic that follows the auto-lock rules (via the web), pop up a message indicating that the topic was locked per the rules, and does the moderator wish to exclude the topic from the rules, Yes/No? If No, then it will lock again later that evening. If Yes, it will be excluded from the auto-lock.

If this is being done by email commands, a message could be sent requesting the same answer. If the moderator doesn't respond, that's treated as a No.

If this is being done by API, there could be an optional setting to make it permanent or not as part of the request. If not specified, it defaults to No.

If a topic is excluded from auto-locking, a nondescript message would indicate this when a moderator with locking privileges views the topic on the web, mostly to prevent bug reports ("Hey, why isn't this topic being auto-locked????")

I think that will be the friendliest way to do it. It could also use a #noautolock hashtag, but I don't want to encourage hashtag pollution.

JohnF


moderated Re: Retroactive Topic Locking? #misc #suggestion

 

Another problem is that there appears to be no activity-log entry for a topic that becomes locked or moderated automatically due to group time-out. The log shows "xyx unlocked topic," and then the topic appears locked again the next day with no explanatory log entry. So at the bare minimum this is a logging - er - failure (not a bug! not a bug!;). It makes the re-locking *appear* to be a bug to moderators trying to figure out why the topic shows up locked the next day after they locked it. Having a log entry for this would at least mitigate confusion.

So to summarize, these are my suggestions, and then I'll beg out of this thread:

Best solution: provide a "Do not relock [remoderate] automatically" setting that can be applied selectively by hand to individual topics in a group with a auto-lock [auto-moderate] setting

Temporary mitigation of confusion: either disallow the unlocking [unmoderating] of automatically timed-out topics, or provide a warning/confirmation box

Long-term logging improvement: add log entries "topic automatically locked [moderated] due to group setting"
--
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

3041 - 3060 of 28831